• 

  Limited Liability Partnership Act. Disputes between partners arising out of a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement are statutorily and compulsorily referable to arbitration as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, even if the Agreement does not contain an arbitration clause. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Rent Control legislation. A tenant's failure to pay the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller for a prolonged period, despite having neither sought nor obtained a stay of the fixation order from the appellate or revisional forum constitutes ‘wilful default,’ justifying an order of eviction. Supreme Court.

  • 13-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Land Acquisition. When a civil suit is pending or multiple claimants assert rights over the acquired land, the Special Land Acquisition Officer must pass a general award and deposit the compensation amount before the reference court. Award cannot be delayed for prolonged period quoting pendency of civil disputes. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Doctrine of Finality. Land Acquisition. A highly belated appeal by the legal heirs is not maintainable when the deceased claimant had accepted the enhanced compensation and failed to seek further enhancement within the limitation period during his lifetime. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Industrial Disputes Act. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited is a 'Railway Company' under Sectin 2(o) and the Central Goverment is the 'appropriate Government' under Section 2(a). State Govt has no power to declare BMRCL as a 'public utility service'under Section 2(n). Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Specific Relief Act. Unilateral termination of a non-terminable sale agreement is a breach by repudiation. The purchaser need not seek a separate declaration the invalidity of the termination to maintain a suit for specific performance. Supreme Court.

  • 12-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An order passed by a Commercial Court rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is deemed to be a 'decree' and a 'judgment or order' appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act. The proviso to Section 13(1A), restricting appeals to orders enumerated in Order XLIII CPC, applies only to interlocutory orders and does not apply to an order which amounts to a decree. Supreme Court.

  • 12-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A suit for recovery of possession simpliciter for possessin property based on encroachment without a prayer for declaration of title is maintainable if the defendant's pleadings and evidence do not cast a cloud upon the plaintiff's title. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Hindu Law. Alienation of an undivided share in joint family property by a coparcener is valid only to the extent of his share and is not binding on the shares of the non-alienating coparceners. The purchaser must seek to have the alienated property allotted to the vendor's share during the final decree proceedings of the partition suit. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Forest Act. The Act prescribes a specific legal procedure for eviction, including an appellate remedy. A civil suit seeking an injunction to restrain the authorities from proceeding under the Act is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act. When the complaint and FIR reveal cognizable offences like cheating, proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the matter also has a civil aspect, as civil and criminal remedies may coexist. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ''Right to own immovable property naturally encompasses the freedom to purchase and sell property''. The Government cannot, through subordinate legislation under the Registration Act, mandate the production of mutation, jamabandi, or similar records for document registration, as this would improperly require the registering officer to assess the vendor’s title. Supreme Court.

  • 11-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal