• 

  Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act. Where service rules do not provide for an appeal, the aggrieved party may file an appeal under Rule 11 of the Rules framed under the Act. A writ petition is not maintainable in such circumstances. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A dispute that is essentially of a civil nature, arising from a breach of contract, cannot be given a criminal texture by clever drafting especially when the allegations concern contractual grievances and monetary claims that are already being addressed in civil or arbitration proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Income Tax Act. A completed or unabated assessment cannot be reopened under Section 153A unless incriminating material revealing undisclosed income is discovered during the search. The object of Section 153A is to tax such undisclosed income detected in the search, not to arbitrarily reassess concluded matters. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Rent Act. Production of rent receipts serves as prima facie proof of the landlord-tenant relationship, enabling the court to proceed with the eviction case without a detailed inquiry into the landlord’s title. The revisional court cannot exceed its jurisdiction by undertaking a fact-finding exercise. Supreme Court.

  • 11-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Land Reforms Act. A family dispute concerning agricultural land cannot be treated as a landlord–tenant matter under the Act. Mere possession and cultivation of the land do not establish tenancy; the burden lies on the claimant to prove the existence of a tenancy. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Under the amended Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, revenue authorities are bound to entertain applications seeking cancellation of land forfeiture, even when the forfeiture is followed by sale of the property for recovery of government dues. Upon repayment of the arrears, the authorities must delete ‘Sarkari Pada’ entry from the revenue records. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  SARFEASI Act. An auction purchaser who fails to pay the full sale consideration is not entitled to a refund of the deposit merely because the auctioning authority did not deliver possession. The proper course for such a purchaser is to deposit the balance sale price in full and thereafter seek legal remedies to obtain possession. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Indian Registration Act. When a General Power of Attorney holder vested with full powers executes a sale deed, he is deemed to be the ‘person executing’ the document under Section 32(a). In such a case, authentication of the GPA by the Sub-Registrar is not required. Authentication is necessary only when an agent merely presents the document on behalf of the principal. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Civil Procedure Code. A court's power of review is limited to correcting a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The court exceeds its review jurisdiction when it records fresh findings and overturns previous conclusions, effectively acting as an appellate court. Supreme Court.

  • 10-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An employer cannot initiate departmental proceedings for incidents that occurred beyond the prescribed limitation period. Once this period has lapsed, an employee’s retirement benefits cannot be withheld indefinitely on the pretext of contemplated disciplinary action. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ‘’Maintenance cannot remain a mirage shimmering in the desert of inflation’’. Karnataka High Court urges the Union Government to revisit Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act and revise the ceiling in line with the cost-of-living index.

  • 09-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A plaint cannot be rejected in fragments under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The provision does not empower the Court to strike out certain portions while permitting the rest to continue. Its scheme and language make it clear that rejection can be ordered only when the plaint, viewed in its entirety, is either barred by law or fails to disclose a cause of action. Karnataka High Court.

  • 09-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal