• 

  Tender – Blacklisting/Debarment. Submission of forged documents warrants cancellation of the bid. Fraud strikes at the very root of justice and vitiates even the most solemn proceedings. A tenderer cannot evade responsibility by attributing such fraudulent acts to its employees, as the employer is vicariously liable for acts committed in the course of employment. Karnataka High Court.

  • 22-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Civil Procedure Code. Order 21 Rule 90. Although any fraud or irregularity in the process of publication of an order of attachment or the lack thereof is broadly covered within the scope of the Rule 90, the applicant must prove that he has suffered substantial injury as a consequence of it. Supreme Court.

  • 22-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Civil Procedure Code. Order 21 Rule 89. an applicant cannot, at a belated stage, seek to assail an auction sale, particularly when there existed a prior opportunity to raise the same objection before the proclamation of sale was drawn up. Supreme Court.

  • 06-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Electricity Act 2003. Inter-State transmission of electricity under Section 11 can be regulated not only by the Central Government but also by the State Government in an extraordinary circumstance, arising in the public interest. Karnataka High Court.

  • 20-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Civil Procedure Code. Order 21 Rule 89. Application to set aside sale on deposit of the decretal amount can be made even by a pendente lite transferee. Supreme Court.

  • 20-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Tender blacklisting. Members of a consortium are jointly and severally liable for the actions of the lead member in the tender process. Even a ‘non-active’ partner who claims to have withdrawn from the consortium can be legally debarred if they failed to notify the tendering authority of the fraud immediately upon discovery, thereby acting as a ‘fence-sitter’. Karnataka High Court.

  • 20-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Rent Act. A tenant who has historically paid rent to a person and admitted the tenancy in writing is legally estopped from challenging that person's title as ‘landlord’. Where a landlord provides evidence of a bonafide intent to demolish and reconstruct a dilapidated property for commercial purposes, and such evidence remains largely undisputed during cross-examination, the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Stamp Act. When a sale deed is executed in furtherance of decree for specific performance after contest, the stamp duty liable to be paid would be the value of the property as shown in the agreement and not the value as on the date on which the document was presented for registration. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Court is not an expert in handwriting and cannot reject an application to refer disputed signatures to an expert solely based on its own visual comparison. When the outcome of a case under rests primarily on the identity of a denied signature, and there is no other corroborative evidence to form a conclusion, the court must refer the matter to a handwriting expert. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Indian Succession Act. Proof of a will is satisfied if even one attesting witness confirms the testator’s execution and the attestation by both witnesses, notwithstanding that part of such evidence emerges through leading questions in cross-examination. Courts must give primacy to the testator’s intention and cannot supplant it with notions of equity to invalidate a will excluding a legal heir, so long as the testator was of sound mind and the execution was lawful. Supreme Court.

  • 19-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 118 limited only to those specific matters expressly provided for within the Act. A civil suit filed by a third party or a leaseholder to protect possession of a property is maintainable, as such a dispute does not fall within the ambit of 'business of the society' or internal management disputes. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Specific Relief Act. In a summary suit for recovery of possession under Section 6, the plaintiff bears the absolute burden of proving actual physical possession of the property within six months preceding the date of filing. A claim of illegal dispossession cannot be maintained solely on the basis of unsubstantiated oral contentions. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal