Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. A plaint cannot be rejected under on the ground of limitation unless the suit is ex-facie barred by the law of limitation. Where the question of limitation depends on the adjudication of facts, it becomes a mixed question of law and fact. The power of rejection at the threshold must be exercised only when the legal bar is certain and undisputed on the face of the record. Karnataka High Court.
Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. A plaint cannot be rejected under on the ground of limitation unless the suit is ex-facie barred by the law of limitation. Where the question of limitation depends on the adjudication of facts, it becomes a mixed question of law and fact. The power of rejection at the threshold must be exercised only when the legal bar is certain and undisputed on the face of the record. Karnataka High Court.
  • 25-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal that merely resolves an incidental factual or procedural issue such as the validity of an authorization to sign an agreement without conclusively determining a substantive claim or a jurisdictional challenge, does not constitute an 'interim award'. Such an order cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal that merely resolves an incidental factual or procedural issue such as the validity of an authorization to sign an agreement without conclusively determining a substantive claim or a jurisdictional challenge, does not constitute an 'interim award'. Such an order cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
  • 25-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Pre-emptive suit by testator for avoiding disputes regarding execution and proof of Will.
Pre-emptive suit by testator for avoiding disputes regarding execution and proof of Will.
  • 21-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
Article
News
Dowry death. A conviction cannot rest solely on medical evidence of homicidal death without a credible link showing cruelty soon before death. Where interested witnesses give materially contradictory statements unsupported by independent evidence, statutory presumptions cannot be invoked. If dowry allegations are vague and the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Karnataka High Court.
Dowry death. A conviction cannot rest solely on medical evidence of homicidal death without a credible link showing cruelty soon before death. Where interested witnesses give materially contradictory statements unsupported by independent evidence, statutory presumptions cannot be invoked. If dowry allegations are vague and the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Karnataka High Court.
  • 25-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Authorities under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Karnataka Sakala Services Act must process mutation and revenue entry applications within the prescribed timelines. Unexplained delay in updating records based on a registered sale deed amounts to a breach of public duty. Karnataka High Court imposes personal costs on the erring official.
Authorities under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Karnataka Sakala Services Act must process mutation and revenue entry applications within the prescribed timelines. Unexplained delay in updating records based on a registered sale deed amounts to a breach of public duty. Karnataka High Court imposes personal costs on the erring official.
  • 25-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Employees’ Compensation Act. The liability to pay the statutory penalty for the delay in depositing compensation lies exclusively with the employer. The insurance company is only liable to indemnify the employer for the principal compensation amount and the interest thereon. The Courts cannot fasten the liability of the penalty on the insurance company, as the penalty is a punitive consequence of the employer’s personal default. Supreme Court.
Employees’ Compensation Act. The liability to pay the statutory penalty for the delay in depositing compensation lies exclusively with the employer. The insurance company is only liable to indemnify the employer for the principal compensation amount and the interest thereon. The Courts cannot fasten the liability of the penalty on the insurance company, as the penalty is a punitive consequence of the employer’s personal default. Supreme Court.
  • 25-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
The repeal of the Industrial Disputes Act and the commencement of the Industrial Relations Code does not create an adjudicatory vacuum. The existing Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals retain the jurisdiction to entertain and decide references until the new Tribunals under the Code are fully operational by virtue of Section 104 (1A) of the Code and the principles enshrined in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Karnataka High Court.
The repeal of the Industrial Disputes Act and the commencement of the Industrial Relations Code does not create an adjudicatory vacuum. The existing Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals retain the jurisdiction to entertain and decide references until the new Tribunals under the Code are fully operational by virtue of Section 104 (1A) of the Code and the principles enshrined in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Karnataka High Court.
  • 24-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Service Law. The State cannot transfer a government servant without simultaneously providing a specific alternative posting. A transfer order that merely directs an officer to report to a superior authority for future instructions is legally unsustainable. Any officer relieved without a new posting is entitled to remain in their previous position until a new assignment is provided. Karnataka High Court.
Service Law. The State cannot transfer a government servant without simultaneously providing a specific alternative posting. A transfer order that merely directs an officer to report to a superior authority for future instructions is legally unsustainable. Any officer relieved without a new posting is entitled to remain in their previous position until a new assignment is provided. Karnataka High Court.
  • 24-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Karnataka Excise Rules. Licence is not a saleable commodity. The rights and liabilities arising from a private agreement between the transferor and transferee are outside the scope of the statutory rules. Once the application is filed with the requisite fees and the transfer process is triggered, the licensee can no longer control the process and withdraw. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Excise Rules. Licence is not a saleable commodity. The rights and liabilities arising from a private agreement between the transferor and transferee are outside the scope of the statutory rules. Once the application is filed with the requisite fees and the transfer process is triggered, the licensee can no longer control the process and withdraw. Karnataka High Court.
  • 24-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement

Become A Member Get Instant Update

Daksha Legal Seminars

Daksha Legal Seminar on Model Tenancy Act

  • 03-October-2021 22:43

Panchanama - Evidentiary Value: Justice John Michael Cunha, Former Judge Karnataka High Court

  • 15-July-2021 03:42

Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code

  • 15-July-2021 03:40

Judgment on Basic Structure doctrine- Kenya High Court

  • 15-July-2021 03:37

Trial of Suits for Declaration of Title, Injunction and Possession. S.R.Somashekar, Principal District Judge (Rtd)

  • 30-May-2021 17:55

Trial of Partition Suits :Procedural Law (Part-I) Shri. S.R. Somashekara, Principal District Judge (Rtd) 28 May 2021

  • 30-May-2021 04:27

Discussion on Junior Advocates and guidance by Seniors.

  • 09-December-2020 06:19

Bail & Anticipatory Bail - M.S. Shyamsunder, Advocate, Bangalore

  • 09-December-2020 06:20

Woman as Coparcener. Legal Implications - Justice N Kumar

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Anup Shah

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Instruments Not Duly Stamped - Justice A N Venugopalagowda

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Withdrawal and Adjustment of Suits - Justice A N Venugopalagowda

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Judicial Review jurisdiction Prayers and Reliefs Mr Mohan V Katarki Senior Advocate Supreme Court

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Rejection of Plaint Justice A N Venugopalagowda 16 Sept 2020

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Driving License and Defence to Insurer - Mr S P Shankar Senior Advocate

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Termination of Contract & Drafting Termination Clause & Termination Notice - Ajay Nandalike. Adv.

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Daksha Legal Seminar Justice Ashok B Hinchigeri. "Civil Procedure Code. Order 26 Rule 9"

  • 25-November-2020 06:12

Daksha Legal Online seminar on disability laws with Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate, Bangalore.

  • 25-November-2020 06:12

Article 370 - Bridge or Barricade? Seminar conducted by Daksha Legal - Mr. J Sai Deepak, Advocate

  • 25-November-2020 06:12

Daksha Legal discussion on Latest Judgement of Karnataka High Court on Hindu Law.

  • 25-November-2020 06:11

Client Reviews

Client Review 1
Client Review 2
Client Review 3
Client Review 4
'Supreme Court curtailing the inherent powers of the High Courts. Neither Legal nor Justified'. - B.V.Acharya, former Advocate General for Karnataka.
'Supreme Court curtailing the inherent powers of the High Courts. Neither Legal nor Justified'. - B.V.Acharya, former Advocate General for Karnataka.
  • 07-November-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Tender. When the intending party responds to the tender notice, it is not permissible for such party to put forth its own conditions and seek variance in the conditions of tender. Karnataka High Court.
Tender. When the intending party responds to the tender notice, it is not permissible for such party to put forth its own conditions and seek variance in the conditions of tender. Karnataka High Court.
  • 08-October-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Suit for specific performance. Purchaser of suit property from the defendant/vendor is a necessary party to the suit and can be impleaded. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. Purchaser of suit property from the defendant/vendor is a necessary party to the suit and can be impleaded. Karnataka High Court.
  • 03-October-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Suit for specific performance. Plaintiff can seek amendment of pleading to declare that collusive decree between his vendor and third party is not binding on him. Court must prevent multiplicity of the proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. Plaintiff can seek amendment of pleading to declare that collusive decree between his vendor and third party is not binding on him. Court must prevent multiplicity of the proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
  • 01-October-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Tender. Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender because it feels that some other terms would have been fair, wiser or logical. Karnataka High Court.
Tender. Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender because it feels that some other terms would have been fair, wiser or logical. Karnataka High Court.
  • 30-September-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Negotiable Instruments Act. Cheque issued towards refund of advance sale consideration upon the failure to execute the sale deed, attracts the provisions of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Cheque issued towards refund of advance sale consideration upon the failure to execute the sale deed, attracts the provisions of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
  • 28-September-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article