• 

  In a suit for partition involving property under development, the Court must balance competing interests by refusing a complete halt if it causes undue hardship, but may mould interim relief by directing reservation of a portion equivalent to the plaintiff’s claimed share. This safeguards the effectiveness of any future decree, while remaining subject to final adjudication on merits. Karnataka High Court.

  • 06-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Seizure of vehicle. FIR and the consequential seizure of a vehicle are liable to be quashed if the state authorities specifically Motor Vehicle Inspectors or Police act in 'flagrant disregard' of mandatory procedural safeguards and the rule of law. Karnataka High Court orders departmental inquiry against the erring officers.

  • 06-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  SARFAESI Act. Secured Creditor has no legal authority to initiate recovery measures against properties owned by third parties who are neither borrowers, mortgagors, nor guarantors for the loan. The enforcement of a 'security interest' is strictly contingent upon the existence of a validly created mortgage or charge. Karnataka High Court.

  • 03-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Lok Adalat. Advocates have no authority to enter into a final compromise or settle a claim without the express consent and signatures of the parties themselves. A settlement executed and signed solely by advocates is procedurally void, as it lacks the consensus ad idem essential to a valid compromise. Karnataka High Court.

  • 04-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Orders and recovery certificates issued by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority are binding and enforceable as arrears of land revenue. The State must identify, attach, and auction the defaulting developer’s assets to satisfy homebuyers’ claims within a reasonable, court-fixed timeframe. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Specific Relief Act. A technical delay in depositing the money does not automatically entitle the seller to a recession of the contract under Section 28, especially when the buyer has shown a bona fide intent to complete the sale by approaching the executing Court for permission to pay. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  SARFAESI. Though sale becomes absolute upon confirmation, it does not mean that in the interregnum, the Bank can arbitrarily cancel the auction as per the whims and fancies, change the cause of auction in favour of the principal borrower. Karnataka High Court asks RBI to strengthen the process of public auction.

  • 02-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Specific Relief Act. The Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 28, may extend the time for payment of the balance sale consideration even after the decree has been passed. The power to rescind the contract is discretionary, not mandatory, and ought not to be invoked where the judgment debtor has remained silent for a considerable period during execution proceedings or has failed to object when the decree-holder sought leave to deposit the amount. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Mother allowing the revenue entries to be mutated in her son’s name in respect of property inherited by her cannot be construed as having relinquished title and possession over the property even if such entries for prolonged period. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Time limit of 120 days to file Written Statement in Civil Cases. Karnataka High Court stays the Karnataka amendment to the Civil Procedure Code.

  • 01-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  In a suit for declaration, the Court can 'mould the relief' to order a partition among the legitimate branches of the lineage. The absence of certain legal heirs as formal parties does not preclude the Court from ordering a partition; their specific entitlements can be adjudicated and protected during the 'Final Decree' proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Debt Recovery Tribunal, being a statutory body and not a “court” in the traditional sense, has no power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As the 45-day period prescribed for filing an application is a mandatory statutory limit, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain applications filed beyond this period. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal