• 

  Constitution of India. A foreigner or foreign company cannot claim protection under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Article 19, noble in its spirit and luminous in its promise, remains a charter of rights conferred upon citizens only. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Evidence Act. A registered, 30 year old adoption deed carries a presumption of due execution which, when coupled with proof of the customary 'giving and taking' ceremony, is sufficient to establish the adoption, provided the challenging party fails to rebut the presumption. Karnataka High Court.

  • 17-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Arrest of an accused under Section 19 is legally valid and not arbitrary if the Enforcement Directorate demonstrates sufficient material and a reason to believe that the accused is involved in money laundering, provided that at least one scheduled/predicate offense is alive. Karnataka High Court.

  • 17-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Town Planning. The validity of a building plan sanction is governed by the law in force on the date of its approval, not the date of application. Mere submission of an application does not confer any vested right or legitimate expectation for consideration under the earlier regulations, particularly when a later statutory amendment introduces restrictions in the public interest. Karnataka High Court.

  • 17-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Rejection of plaint. Where several reliefs are sought in suit, if any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law by taking recourse to Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Supreme Court.

  • 17-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When a sufficient joint family nucleus formed by pooling income from inherited property and family benefits is proven to exist, the burden shifts to the individual co-sharer to affirmatively demonstrate that any subsequent acquisition was made solely from their independent, separate funds; failure to discharge this burden leads to the acquisition being treated as joint family property subject to partition. Karnataka High Court.

  • 16-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC for removal of obstruction cannot be entertained to resolve dispute between the decree holder and a person claiming title through the decree holder - an alleged purchaser. The applicant has liberty to file a separate suit to establish his claim. Karnataka High Court.

  • 16-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction seeking removal of an encroachment on a public road, when filed by a user of that road, is maintainable even without a prayer for declaration of title or public right, especially when the fact of encroachment is established by the evidence. Karnataka High Court.

  • 16-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When the court finds that sufficient oral and documentary evidence already exists for the adjudication of the issues, Court Commissioner cannot be appointed only to resolve any ambiguity or aid in the appreciation of existing material. Karnataka High Court.

  • 16-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An agreement to sell property, when execution of the sale deed is postponed due to the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, is not void. A suit for specific performance can be decreed once the Fragmentation Act is repealed. Karnataka High Court.

  • 16-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Although a writ petition challenging an ex parte injunction order passed by the trial court is maintainable, the High Court should refrain from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction when an application seeking discharge of the ad-interim ex parte injunction is already pending before the trial court. Karnataka High Court.

  • 15-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Mohammedan Law. In the absence of a legal guardian i.e. father or grandfather, the mother, as the de facto guardian, can act on behalf of her minor son and accept an oral gift. She has no authority to transfer any right or interest in the minor’s immovable property. Karnataka High Court.

  • 15-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal