• 

  Civil Procedure Code. Section 10, which mandates the stay of a subsequent suit, does not apply to proceedings before a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal since these forums are not Civil Courts of concurrent jurisdiction. Industrial Disputes Act is a self-contained code that prioritizes the expeditious adjudication of claims over procedural stays typical of civil litigation. Karnataka High Court.

  • 30-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Mere pendency of a judicial proceeding before a Court does not, by itself, grant administrative or statutory authorities the right to withhold consideration of applications or representations. Unless a competent court has issued a specific order of stay or restraint, authorities are obligated to discharge their duties and pass timely, reasoned orders on matters pending before them. Karnataka High Court.

  • 30-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka High Court calls upon the State to strictly enforce laws against unauthorised banners and flexes. Deplores official indifference to their proliferation in public spaces.

  • 28-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not apply to acquisitions under special statutes such as Bangalore Development Authority Act, since the BDA Act is a self-contained Code for planned development and does not adapt the 2013, Act by reference. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. In a suit for declaration and possession involving agricultural land, the market value for the purpose of calculating Court fees must be determined solely as 25 times the annual land revenue as prescribed by the deeming provision in Section 7(2) of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 29-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Bangalore Development Authority Act. An acquisition can be declared abandoned in fact and unenforceable in law if the authority fails to tender compensation and take physical possession over several decades. The acquisition though not automatically lapsed under Section 24(2), stands abandoned in fact and unenforceable in law. Karnataka High Court.

  • 29-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When a public servant performs lawful duties, no individual can claim license to intimidate or abuse such public servant for mere discharge of public functions. Karnataka High Court rejects the petition of a politician booked for the abusing woman officer on duty.

  • 29-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Where a party seeks to displace natural succession by setting up a Will, and that Will is disputed, Revenue and Municipal authorities cannot adjudicate upon the validity, genuineness, or execution of a disputed Will. The party claiming under the Will must establish its legitimacy in a Civil Court before any mutation entry or Khatha transfer can be effected. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Bigamy. Section 494 IPC. A Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence of bigamy based on a police report filed under Section 190(1)(b). A police report cannot be elevated to the status of a ‘complaint’ for offences falling under Chapter XX of the IPC. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The procedure of granting the accused an opportunity of being heard at the stage of taking cognizance, as prescribed in the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, does not apply to complaints for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Industrial Disputes Act. A finding on the fairness and propriety of a domestic enquiry recorded in proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) operates as res judicata in subsequent proceedings under Section 10, provided that the finding was reached after a comprehensive enquiry where parties were permitted to lead oral and documentary evidence. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A mining lease granted in contravention of the mandatory minimum area requirements is void. Such a lease is ineligible for the benefit of ‘deemed extension’ since a statutory legal fiction cannot be invoked to validate or extend an interest that was void at its inception. Karnataka High Court.

  • 27-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal