• 

  An amendment to a plaint, such as adding a prayer for possession in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, should be liberally allowed, even if filed belatedly, provided it is sought at a pre-trial stage and does not fundamentally alter the nature of the suit or cause irreparable prejudice to the opposing party. Karnataka High Court.

  • 05-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The regularization of unauthorized land occupation and the subsequent issuance of a Saguvali Chit are invalid if the granting committee's order lacks a reasoned basis and fails to follow the prescribed legal procedures. Karnataka High Court.

  • 05-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Societies Registration Act. Registrar of Societies in pursuance of an enquiry held by his delegate cannot as a postman forward the enquiry report as received to the society. He must apply his mind, accept the report and then forward it to the society. Karnataka High Court.

  • 05-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Employees State Insurance Act. Labourers engaged through contractors for construction and repair works undertaken within the factory premises are to be treated as `employees' within the meaning of Section 2(9). Karnataka High Court.

  • 06-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Specific Relief Act. Suit seeking an injunction to restrain the alienation of property agreed to be sold cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where the plaintiff clearly asserts an intention to pursue a comprehensive suit for specific performance. Karnataka High Court.

  • 05-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Preventive detention is advised to assert/afford protection to society. Courts cannot sit as an Appellate Court on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Karnataka High Court.

  • 04-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Civil court cannot grant ex-parte injunctions that broadly restrain defendants from exercising their fundamental right to free speech and expression, merely under the guise of preventing defamatory statements, without meticulously balancing the competing rights and interests. Karnataka High Court.

  • 04-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Courts designated as the ''seat of arbitration'' retain jurisdiction for execution-related procedures, including asset disclosure under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC, even if the judgment debtor seeks to oust jurisdiction by post-filing conduct like shifting premises or disposing assets. Karnataka High Court.

  • 05-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on the same facts. Availing civil remedy is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR when the complaint contains overwhelming element of criminality. Supreme Court.

  • 04-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ‘’Examination of judgment-debtor as to his property’’ under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC is merely a procedural step in aid of execution and does not constitute an execution proceeding in itself. The court's jurisdiction is not ousted solely because the judgment-debtor disposes of assets or surrenders a lease after the commencement of such proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

  • 04-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act does not bar civil suit for permanent injunction to prevent dispossession without due process of law if actual physical possession has not been taken in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure, even if an Assistant Commissioner's order for property restoration has attained finality. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An adverse inference, being a presumption, can be drawn only during trial and must be based on the specific facts of each case. It requires the evaluation of evidence to determine whether there has been full, partial, or no compliance with the relevant order. Such a presumption is always rebuttable during the course of the trial. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal