• 

  Service Law. When the State Government provides an explicit assurance through official correspondence that candidates securing a minimum qualifying mark in a selection process will be appointed, such candidates acquire a 'Legitimate Expectation' of appointment. The State cannot subsequently deny these appointments by citing the abolition of the cadre or changes in recruitment rules. Karnataka High Court.

  • 27-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Land Acquisition Act. Section 28A is a benevolent provision designed to ensure 'parity in compensation'. A landowner is not prohibited from filing a second application for re-determination of compensation if a higher amount is subsequently awarded, even if he has already benefited from an earlier re-determination based on a lower Reference Court award. Supreme Court.

  • 27-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Suicide of a minor following consumption of liquor: A licensee is not only prohibited from serving alcohol to minors but is also under a duty to ensure that minors are not allowed to remain on premises where intoxicants are sold or manufactured. Karnataka High Court rejects plea of Brewing Company partner challenging criminal prosecution.

  • 25-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A writ of mandamus for the payment of compensation for improvements on acquired land cannot be issued in the absence of clear, contemporaneous documentary evidence proving that such structures existed prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification. To succeed in such a claim, the petitioner must establish a 'legally enforceable right' based on verified records rather than bare assertions. Karnataka High Court.

  • 26-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A party cannot be held 'jointly and severally' liable for a monetary claim in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence linking that party to the transaction. An admission by the plaintiff during cross-examination that a particular defendant was not involved in the deal or the receipt of funds is fatal to the claim against that individual. Karnataka High Court.

  • 26-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When a special statute prescribes a specific time limit for filing an appeal and expressly restricts the period for which delay can be condoned, the Courts cannot exercise discretionary powers to extend that period further. Mere filing and subsequent withdrawal of proceedings before the High Court does not reset the limitation timeline. Karnataka High Court.

  • 26-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Central Goods and Services Tax Act. A claim for refund is a substantive statutory right. While Section 54 prescribes a two-year limitation period for filing such claims, the High Court under Article 226 possesses the authority to condone a moderate delay where the taxpayer's entitlement to the refund is undisputed on merits and the delay is not found to be intentional or due to gross negligence. Karnataka High Court.

  • 26-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Specific Relief Act. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. (Referred) Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Service Law. Initial absence from duty may constitute misconduct; however, prolonged and unexplained absence can amount to voluntary abandonment of service. In such cases, the employment relationship stands terminated automatically, without the necessity of any formal order by the employer. Orissa High Court.

  • 25-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Wakf. A suit instituted by a Wakf Institution cannot be dismissed as not maintainable or abated solely because the Mutawalli who filed the suit has been removed from office or has seen their term expire. Since the Institution itself is the suitor, the litigation must continue to protect the underlying public or religious interest. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Kartha of a Hindu Joint Family possesses the legal authority to alienate ancestral property without the consent of other coparceners, provided the alienation is for 'legal necessity' or for the 'benefit of the estate'—such as meeting the expenses for a daughter’s marriage or family maintenance. Once such necessity is proved, the sale is binding on all members of the joint family. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When a non-executant seeks declaration that the sale deed is null or void and does not bind on him, he has to merely pay court fee on the value of the reliefs sought and not ad valorem court-fee on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal