• 

  In a partition suit, the defendant is entitled to include properties that have not been mentioned in the plaint. Such inclusion can be made through the written statement and does not amount to filing a counter-claim. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Civil court has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of an order passed by the Land Tribunal due to the bar under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Any order by a Civil Court setting aside a Land Tribunal’s decision would be void and without legal effect. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  High Court can exceptionally exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct a statutory corporation to comply with an industrial award that has attained finality, including payment of withheld back wages. Compelling the workman to resort to the statutory remedy would be unfair given the specific circumstances and the imminent superannuation of the workman. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ''While recording the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, use simple language and translate it into the accused's language to ensure understanding''. Karnataka High Court cautions trial courts against using complex legal and medical terminology, emphasizing the need for clear and simple language.

  • 28-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  If a vendor refuses to register a sale deed that has already been executed, the appropriate remedy is to seek registration under the Registration Act. A suit for specific performance seeking such relief is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  “Precious judical time already exhausted cannot be diverted further to revisit a closed chapter thus permitting litigation to become a platform for endless grievances.” Karnataka High Court imposes cost of Rs.1 lakh on the cantankerous litigant.

  • 26-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An allotting authority cannot penalize an allottee for delays in contract execution that are a direct result of the authority's administrative inconsistencies, such as presenting altered terms without proper communication of policy changes. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Principle that a suit for bare injunction does not lie when title is seriously disputed is not an inflexible rule. A temporary injunction can be granted to protect established and lawful possession, even when title is disputed, if the possession is clearly evidenced and its disruption would cause irreparable harm. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A written statement, once filed, cannot be completely withdrawn or replaced, even if there are allegations of fraud concerning its initial filing. The appropriate legal recourse for a defendant seeking to introduce new facts, add paragraphs, or alter their defense after filing a written statement is to file an application for amendment. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  POCSO Act. DNA evidence alone, though having evidentiary value under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, cannot establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt without corroborative testimony, especially when the prosecutrix denies the incident. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A plaint can be rejected at the threshold if, upon a meaningful reading, it is clear that the suit is barred by limitation, even when the question of limitation is generally considered a mixed question of law and fact. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be invoked by an accused to file a second petition for quashing a criminal complaint on grounds that were manifestly available and could have been raised in a prior quashing petition. Supreme Court.

  • 25-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal