• 

  In a suit for partition of joint Hindu family property, the wife and children of a coparcener have an independent right to challenge a compromise decree that adversely affects their pre-existing rights in the ancestral property. Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC should not be used to reject a plaint in a partition suit at a preliminary stage when there are substantive rights of the parties that need to be adjudicated through a full trial. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-April-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Negotiable Instruments Act. If the payee is a proprietary concern, the proprietor can file complaint while describing as a sole proprietor of proprietary concern. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-April-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Criminal Law. In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the absence of a complete and reliable chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime warrants acquittal. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-April-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A compromise decree can only be challenged by filing a recall application in the same court, not by filing a fresh suit. Once the Court passes a compromise decree after a satisfaction, the decree cannot be challenged in an appeal as no appeal lies against a compromise decree. Supreme Court.

  • 23-April-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  In a case where the husband has passed away and the daughter-in-law and grandchildren are residing separately, proceeding for maintenance against the father-in-law is untenable, especially when the father-in-law is aged. Karnataka High Court.

  • 22-April-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  If the legal notice is not issued within 30 days from the date of receiving the dishonour intimation excluding the first day, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Karnataka High Court.

  • 22-April-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A subsequent purchaser of a property is bound by the arbitration clause in the original agreement, even if they were not a signatory, provided his vendor was a party to that agreement. Karnataka High Court.

  • 22-April-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  PTCL Act. When once the granted land has been resumed and restored to the grantee, second proceeding for resuming the same land sold after the resumption is illegal and without jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.

  • 22-April-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  State Financial Corporation Act. In proceedings under Sections 31 and 32, where the enforcement of a surety's liability is sought, the court's investigation is primarily limited to determining the validity of the financial corporation's claim. Karnataka High Court.

  • 22-April-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When a person’s name has been lawfully entered in the Record of Rights on the basis of a registered sale deed, and is subsequently removed due to fraudulent misrepresentation, the revenue authorities are duty-bound to correct the records and reinstate the rightful entry. Karnataka High Court.

  • 21-April-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A suit for injunction based solely on an agreement to sell is not maintainable as it does not create any interest in the property. The plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Supreme Court.

  • 21-April-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When lands are acquired under the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, Court cannot award solatium and interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 21-April-2025
  • Daksha Legal