• 

  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
• 

  Hindu Law. Devolution of a deceased Hindu male's separate self-acquired property must be governed by the general rules of succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act which mandates that the widow and all children, being Class I heirs, are entitled to equal shares in the property. Coparcenary principles under Section 6 of the Act do not apply to such separate property. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Motor Vehicles Act. A claim petition cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) if there is evidence, such as wound certificates mentioning a Road Traffic Accident (RTA), and a plausible or cogent explanation for the delay is presented, such as prioritizing the medical treatment and care of the injured victims. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A Magistrate may refer a private complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC if the available material prima facie discloses a cognizable offence or a conspiracy to defraud the court, particularly when the inquiry is at a nascent stage. The mere use of the words “further investigation” does not vitiate such exercise of power. Supreme Court.

  • 10-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal