• 

  Principle that a suit for bare injunction does not lie when title is seriously disputed is not an inflexible rule. A temporary injunction can be granted to protect established and lawful possession, even when title is disputed, if the possession is clearly evidenced and its disruption would cause irreparable harm. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A written statement, once filed, cannot be completely withdrawn or replaced, even if there are allegations of fraud concerning its initial filing. The appropriate legal recourse for a defendant seeking to introduce new facts, add paragraphs, or alter their defense after filing a written statement is to file an application for amendment. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  POCSO Act. DNA evidence alone, though having evidentiary value under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, cannot establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt without corroborative testimony, especially when the prosecutrix denies the incident. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A plaint can be rejected at the threshold if, upon a meaningful reading, it is clear that the suit is barred by limitation, even when the question of limitation is generally considered a mixed question of law and fact. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be invoked by an accused to file a second petition for quashing a criminal complaint on grounds that were manifestly available and could have been raised in a prior quashing petition. Supreme Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The burden to prove that a Will was properly executed, including the testator’s signature as required lies fully on the person who relies on the Will. While appellate court can adjust relief to account for later developments to ensure justice, it will not accept late efforts to bring in additional evidence unless it is backed by necessary foundational material. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The insurer is liable to pay the compensation awarded even with an expired driver's license but has the right to recover the amount from the vehicle owner. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Lokayukta Act. An order entrusting a disciplinary enquiry to the Lokayukta based merely on its report under Section 12(3), without independent application of mind or establishment of a prima facie case, and merely reproducing the report despite contrary departmental findings, is liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Purchaser of an undivided share is entitled to initiate a final decree proceeding to obtain partition and separate possession of the share purchased from the vendors instead of filing separate suit for partition. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Mere rise of prices, even astronomical, would not be a reason, by itself, to deny the equitable relief of specific performance once sufficient grounds are made out for granting such relief. Supreme Court.

  • 24-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Police Act. Mere possession of substantial cash without supporting documents is not an offence under Section 98 unless there is reasonable suspicion or evidence that it was stolen or obtained by fraud. Criminal proceedings based solely on such possession are untenable, especially when the seizure occurred outside the Election Code of Conduct period. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When a court grants a legal benefit to certain individuals, the principle of treating similarly situated persons equally requires that the same benefit be extended to all others in identical circumstances, without necessitating separate litigation. Authorities are duty-bound to apply such decisions uniformly to all comparable cases. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal