• 

  Karnataka Land Revenue Act. A statutory land grant evidenced by a 'Saguvali Chit' cannot be defeated by subsequent re-classification of the land as ‘B-Kharab’. Re-classification can only be by following formal, transparent procedure of adjudication and inquiry as prescribed by law. Karnataka High Court.

  • 16-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Though courts cannot adopt hyper-technical approach to amendments, when the facts sought to be introduced were well within the knowledge of the party prior to the commencement of the trial, such amendment cannot be permitted. Karnataka High Court.

  • 15-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules. Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to reject an application for regularization of unauthorized occupation of government land without placing such applications before the 'Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation' for its consideration. Karnataka High Court.

  • 15-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Indian Succession Act. A probate court cannot act as a court of title and reject an application for Letters of Administration on the ground that the applicant failed to produce 'proof of title' or exhaustive details regarding the ownership of the properties. Karnataka High Court.

  • 15-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Criminal Law: When the arrest of an accused is itself illegal, all subsequent actions, such as medical examination, collection of blood samples, and medical or forensic reports also become illegal. Where the prosecution’s entire case is founded on such tainted evidence, the criminal proceedings must be quashed to prevent an abuse of the process of law. Karnataka High Court.

  • 15-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Land acquisition process initiated by the State for the benefit of a non-existent legal entity is void ab initio and constitutes a 'statutory and constitutional fraud.' Karnataka High Court orders criminal investigation by the CBI while quashing the acquisition.

  • 15-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Commercial Courts Act does not oust arbitration, but provides for recourse to the Commercial Division, the Commercial Appellate Division, or the Commercial Court, to the limited extent as contemplated under the Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Order 21 Rule 54 CPC. Third-party buyers who have acquired interests in the property have a substantive legal right to be heard. The Court is duty-bound to allow such buyers to file their objections and must adjudicate upon them before maintaining an attachment that jeopardizes their investments. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Code of Criminal Procedure. For the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468, the relevant date is the date on which the complaint is filed or the date on which criminal proceedings are initiated, and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. The judicial time taken by a Magistrate in processing the complaint or taking cognizance cannot be held against the complainant to bar the prosecution. Supreme Court.

  • 13-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Constitution of India. Article 226(2) confers wide territorial jurisdiction on High Courts wherever any part of the cause of action arises, to be construed liberally across interconnected events. Orders passed in such jurisdiction have extra-territorial effect and bind all authorities, who are duty-bound to comply irrespective of location; any non-compliance constitutes a breach of constitutional obligation and is amenable to correction by writ of mandamus. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Pigmy agents employed by banks cannot be treated as business facilitators for them to be coming under the GST and the services rendered by them are exempt from levy of GST. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC. A fresh suit to set aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful is strictly barred for any party who was a signatory to the compromise. A party cannot circumvent this statutory bar by joining additional properties or impleading new parties to give the appearance of a new cause of action. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-April-2026
  • Daksha Legal