• 

  A compromise decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and unenforceable in law. Mere delay or laches cannot defeat a challenge to such a decree, as fraud vitiates all judicial acts and proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The principle under Order VII Rule 13 CPC that rejection of the plaint does not preclude the plaintiff from preventing a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action does not apply when the plaint is rejected as barred under a statute. Supreme Court.

  • 22-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Rejection of plaint. An application under Order VII Rule 11 can be filed at any stage of the suit. When a suit is barred under a statute such as Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, the Court has no discretion in rejecting the plaint. Supreme Court.

  • 22-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Murderer being disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered. Bar under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act extends even to claims founded on testamentary succession under a Will. Supreme Court.

  • 22-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Adverse Possession. Possession that originates under an agreement of sale or any other permissive or derivative arrangement cannot ripen into adverse possession unless the occupant clearly, unequivocally, and hostilely repudiates the true owner's title, and such repudiation is brought to the owner's knowledge. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A registered sale deed carries presumptive legal value. If a vendor wishes to dispute the execution or validity of a registered sale deed, they must challenge it through appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. In the absence of such a legal challenge, the registered sale deed remains valid and binding, completely disabling the vendor from dealing with the property further. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Prevention of Money Laundering Act. In the absence of an FIR or a complaint before the Magistrate, the Directorate of Enforcement cannot pass an attachment order. Invocation of the first proviso to Section 5(1) requires independent reasons to believe, based on objective material, that immediate attachment is necessary to prevent frustration of the proceedings. Failure to comply with these requirements vitiates the attachment order. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 341

  • 21-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Writ Jurisdiction. A writ petition is maintainable against an illegal attachment order passed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is ex facie illegal or without jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 341

  • 21-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. The 2016 amendments, insofar as they are declaratory, procedural, curative and machinery-oriented, operate retrospectively / retroactively, while penal provisions creating new offences or enhancing punishment to operate only prospectively. Supreme Court.

  • 21-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Hindu Succession Act. Disqualification under Section 25 of a murderer does not depend upon a criminal conviction. Being a civil consequence imposed on a wrongdoer, the issue may be determined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, independent of the stricter standard of proof required in criminal proceedings. Supreme Court

  • 20-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Service Law. An employee who is denied fair consideration for promotion due to the non-communication of ACRs and the destruction of service records is entitled to notional promotion and consequential pensionary benefits. The principle of ‘’no work, no pay’’ cannot be applied in such cases. Supreme Court.

  • 19-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Section 173(3). While a citizen is legally obligated to appear and cooperate with a statutory pre-FIR preliminary inquiry, the police cannot resort to any coercive measures against the summoned individual unless and until a formal opinion is recorded that the collected material discloses a cognizable offence requiring an FIR. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal