Suit for partition. A defendant co-sharer seeking to include omitted joint family properties via an additional written statement cannot be barred on the procedural ground of introducing a ‘second counter-claim,’ provided the foundational burden to establish the joint/ancestral nature of the newly introduced properties remains on that co-sharer. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for partition. A defendant co-sharer seeking to include omitted joint family properties via an additional written statement cannot be barred on the procedural ground of introducing a ‘second counter-claim,’ provided the foundational burden to establish the joint/ancestral nature of the newly introduced properties remains on that co-sharer. Karnataka High Court.
  • 19-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Article 226. The plea of fraud cannot overcome the consequences of prolonged inaction. The principle of delay and laches applies equally to the State, whose duty of diligence is heightened when seeking to unsettle rights litigated for decades. Karnataka High Court.
Article 226. The plea of fraud cannot overcome the consequences of prolonged inaction. The principle of delay and laches applies equally to the State, whose duty of diligence is heightened when seeking to unsettle rights litigated for decades. Karnataka High Court.
  • 18-September-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
Forceful and illegal re-possession of a commercial vehicle by a finance company. Supreme Court orders repayment of the sale price, awards compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the owner.
Forceful and illegal re-possession of a commercial vehicle by a finance company. Supreme Court orders repayment of the sale price, awards compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the owner.
  • 17-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Adverse revenue entries and the proceedings challenging the same constitute accrual of the right to sue for a suit for declaration of title under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. A time-barred plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 1232.
Adverse revenue entries and the proceedings challenging the same constitute accrual of the right to sue for a suit for declaration of title under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. A time-barred plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 1232.
  • 17-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
KPIDFE Act. A mere assertion of payment to or receipt of money by a financial institution does not make a person a ‘depositor’ under the Act. Determining the nature of the transaction, repayment obligation, supporting documents and identity of the depositor involves disputed questions of fact beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
KPIDFE Act. A mere assertion of payment to or receipt of money by a financial institution does not make a person a ‘depositor’ under the Act. Determining the nature of the transaction, repayment obligation, supporting documents and identity of the depositor involves disputed questions of fact beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
  • 17-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. High Courts should exercise extreme restraint under Articles 226/227 in matters arising from arbitral proceedings, and interference is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from patent perversity or lack of inherent jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. High Courts should exercise extreme restraint under Articles 226/227 in matters arising from arbitral proceedings, and interference is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from patent perversity or lack of inherent jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
  • 17-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Though a financier’s right to repossess the financed vehicle is a matter of contract, such a right cannot be exercised through force, stealth or an unfair procedure. Supreme Court issues comprehensive guidelines.
Though a financier’s right to repossess the financed vehicle is a matter of contract, such a right cannot be exercised through force, stealth or an unfair procedure. Supreme Court issues comprehensive guidelines.
  • 18-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Payment of Gratuity Act. An employer may levy interest on the delayed repayment of gratuity by an employee who is reinstated following the setting aside of his dismissal; however, such dues cannot be adjusted, deducted, or recovered from the gratuity payable to the employee. Karnataka High Court.
Payment of Gratuity Act. An employer may levy interest on the delayed repayment of gratuity by an employee who is reinstated following the setting aside of his dismissal; however, such dues cannot be adjusted, deducted, or recovered from the gratuity payable to the employee. Karnataka High Court.
  • 17-September-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