• 

  Code of Criminal Procedure. For the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468, the relevant date is the date on which the complaint is filed or the date on which criminal proceedings are initiated, and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. The judicial time taken by a Magistrate in processing the complaint or taking cognizance cannot be held against the complainant to bar the prosecution. Supreme Court.

  • 13-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Constitution of India. Article 226(2) confers wide territorial jurisdiction on High Courts wherever any part of the cause of action arises, to be construed liberally across interconnected events. Orders passed in such jurisdiction have extra-territorial effect and bind all authorities, who are duty-bound to comply irrespective of location; any non-compliance constitutes a breach of constitutional obligation and is amenable to correction by writ of mandamus. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Pigmy agents employed by banks cannot be treated as business facilitators for them to be coming under the GST and the services rendered by them are exempt from levy of GST. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC. A fresh suit to set aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful is strictly barred for any party who was a signatory to the compromise. A party cannot circumvent this statutory bar by joining additional properties or impleading new parties to give the appearance of a new cause of action. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Allegations of fraud, criminal wrongdoing, or statutory violations do not, by themselves, oust the jurisdiction of an Arbitral Tribunal. Disputes arising from civil or contractual relationships remain arbitrable where covered by a valid arbitration agreement. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Police shall not act as debt recovery agents by converting civil disputes into criminal charges without proper legal basis or evidence of criminality involved. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. Where the State’s assertion of taking possession is corroborated by contemporaneous documentary evidence and sketches showing demarcation, the challenge to the acquisition lacks merit and the property remains vested with the State, regardless of subsequent claims by the original landholders. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Land acquisition. When the market value is determined based on sale deeds that were executed prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification, the principle of 'annual escalation' must be applied to account for the appreciation in land value during the intervening period. Guidance value cannot always be the basis. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Limitation Act. An assignment of receivables does not give rise to a fresh cause of action or extend the period of limitation. The limitation period for recovery of an assigned claim must be computed from the date on which the assignor originally became entitled to enforce the claim, and not from the date of the assignment. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Stamp Act. The authority to impound a document for insufficient stamp duty applies exclusively to the 'original instrument'. A photocopy cannot be impounded, nor can it be validated by the payment of duty and penalty to make it admissible as secondary evidence. Karnataka High Court.

  • 09-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Stamp Act. The time limit of two years to initiate proceedings for undervaluation cannot be defeated by a technical contention that the exercise of calling for the document had been done by the District Registrar within two years. Karnataka High Court.

  • 09-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Deputy Commissioner cannot reject an application for conversion of land on the ground that the land transaction violates the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Though the Deputy Commissioner can initiate 'suo-motu' proceedings through the Assistant Commissioner to investigate PTCL violations, he must consider the conversion application independently. Karnataka High Court.

  • 09-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal