• 

  Limitation Act. A suit for the enforcement of a right of pre-emption is maintainable if filed within one year from the date of assignment of shares by a joint family member in favour of a third party. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Transfer of Property Act. Protection of possession based on the doctrine of part performance is available only when the contract for transfer of immovable property is evidenced by a registered instrument, particularly in respect of documents executed after the statutory amendment. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An application to amend the plaint, even if filed after the commencement of trial or conclusion of arguments, may be allowed when it merely adds an alternative prayer without altering the nature of the suit or the original cause of action, so as to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A superior court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 can refuse a successive remand to a statutory tribunal that has repeatedly failed to discharge its basic adjudicatory duty, such as examining evidence, despite earlier directions. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Properties mortgaged to a Bank as collateral security, and acquired prior to the alleged offenses, do not constitute 'proceeds of crime' under the PMLA. The attachment of such properties undermines the Bank's rights as a secured creditor to recover public money under the SARFAESI Act, especially if the Bank was not issued notice under Section 8 of the PMLA. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. A Co-operative Society cannot nominate any member of its board to vote on its behalf in more than two other Co-operative Societies. If a member/delegate has already represented the Co-operative Society in two previous elections, he becomes ineligible to represent the society and vote as a delegate in a subsequent, third election. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Land Grant Rules Grantee of land must be afforded an opportunity to pay the assessed value of the standing trees within the time prescribed by the granting authority. Any cancellation of the grant without adhering to this procedure is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The trial courts may, during the trial and in the interest of effective administration of justice, indicate the nature of evidence it expects from both parties. Such guidance cannot be construed as the Court siding with either party. Courts are vested with the authority to insist upon better and more satisfactory proof where necessary. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Mohammedan Law. A property for which only an agreement of sale was executed by the owner during his lifetime remains vested in him at the time of his death and therefore constitutes 'matruka property' subject to division among his legal heirs since the agreement of sale does not transfer any title or interest in immovable property. Supreme Court.

  • 23-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Upon transfer of a leased property, the transferee automatically steps into the shoes of the lessor by operation of law, and the tenant is estopped from questioning the transferee’s title. An ejectment suit filed by the transferee is maintainable once the lease has determined either by efflux of time or by a valid quit notice. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A convict who breaches conditions of parole by failing to surrender on the stipulated date is guilty of the offence under Section 58 of the Karnataka Prisons (Amendment) Act, 2022, particularly where the convict fails to produce credible evidence to support any plea of involuntary non-compliance. Karnataka High Court issues guidelines to the Superintendents of Central and District Prisons across the State.

  • 20-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A party bearing the burden of proof cannot, as a general rule—and particularly after the closure of evidence—compel or summon the opposite party to testify as his own witness. Such a course is legally disfavoured and regarded as an abuse of process or a dilatory tactic. The appropriate remedy when the opposing party refrains from entering the witness box is to seek an adverse inference against him. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal