• 

  Hindu Succession Act. Amended Section 6. Person who alienates properties in violation of injunction order of the court cannot take advantage of the alienation by taking shelter under the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Penalty on penalty. A contract, being a commercial agreement, must be construed to give it efficacy rather than invalidate it on broad notions of public policy or unconscionability. Courts do not examine contractual terms unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or biased, and cannot strike down clauses merely because they may consider alternative terms to be fairer or more reasonable. Supreme Court.

  • 11-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Execution proceedings in suit for partition. Person claiming under joint family member who suffered decree cannot maintain application Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be exercised in public interest for questioning the economic/fiscal policy or reforms sought to be undertaken by the Government or its functionaries. Wisdom and advisability of economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution. Supreme Court.

  • 11-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Commercial Courts Act. Interlocutory orders passed by Commercial Courts is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. High Court can permit conversion of the revision petition into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Public policy. When the legislature, within the powers conferred by the constitution, has declared the public policy, and fixed the rights of the people by statute, the courts cannot declare a different policy or fix different rights. Supreme Court.

  • 11-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Suit for specific performance. A subsequent agreement holder or purchaser is not a necessary or proper party to be impleaded in the suit since such transactions are governed by the principle of lis pendens. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act. ‘Deposit’ under Section 2(2) is widely inclusive, covering any money received by a financial establishment to be returned with benefit, unless it is proven to fall within the Act's seven specific exceptions. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Judicial review of a policy decision, such as the revision of property tax rates by a Municipal Corporation, is limited to assessing the legality of the decision making process. Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the executive body especially when the body is discharging its statutory obligation to generate independent revenue for public welfare. Supreme Court.

  • 10-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. Statutory authorities under the Act are required to complete the compulsory acquisition process within a reasonable time after issuing a declaration of a ‘slum area’. An undue and unexplained delay in initiating or pursuing the acquisition constitutes a failure to discharge their statutory duty and justifies quashing the original slum declaration on the ground of delay and laches. Karnataka High Court.

  • 09-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is under a mandatory statutory obligation to act upon and execute a Recovery Certificate issued by the Authority expeditiously. The failure of the Deputy Commissioner to discharge this duty warrants the issuance of a writ of mandamus to ensure time-bound recovery of the awarded amounts. Karnataka High Court.

  • 09-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Transfer of granted land even if for a reduced upset price is void if it violates the non-alienation condition imposed in the grant. When the grantee accepts the condition of non-alienation, a subsequent purchaser cannot contend that such condition could not have been imposed. Karnataka High Court.

  • 09-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal