• 

  Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act. Members of the Grama Panchayat can move a motion for no-confidence against either the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha or both of them by a single requisition notice. Karnataka High Court.

  • 15-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Though scope of an appeal is not allowed to be broadened at the instance of the parties, a party who has not filed appeal can be permitted to raise objections to the findings of the lower Court in the Court of appeal. Karnataka High Court.

  • 15-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Lease cum sale allotment. Authority is bound to execute a sale deed on the expiry of lease period in favour of the allottee and if the allottee does not come forward to get the sale deed executed, it is obliged to execute the sale deed in favour of the allottee and recover the cost thereof. Karnataka High Court.

  • 14-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Allotment of compensatory sites. Once a sale deed is executed and registered, the BDA loses all rights over the property. Unilateral cancellation of the sale deed by the authority is arbitrary, illegal, and unenforceable. Karnataka High Court.

  • 14-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Once a property owner has a registered sale deed, municipal authorities cannot refuse khata registration on technical grounds of the site not being released to the House Building Society in whose favour the layout plan had been approved. Karnataka High Court.

  • 14-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Cruelty under Section 498A IPC is not confined to dowry-related demands but includes any form of harassment or abuse that causes physical or mental harm to the woman. Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the dowry charges were dropped. Karnataka High Court.

  • 14-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Resjudicata. A change in law on account of subsequent judgment of a constitutional court will override an earlier order passed thereby making the principles of resjudicata inapplicable. Karnataka High Court.

  • 14-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Power to record additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised only when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the said evidence in the trial, despite due diligence. Once a request for additional evidence is rejected at the trial stage, the same relief cannot be sought at the appellate stage. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has no jurisdiction to adjudicate private land disputes, especially when a special statute like the PTCL Act, 1978, provides an exclusive mechanism for redressal. Parallel proceedings initiated by the Commission in such cases are illegal and unsustainable. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Failure to object at the earliest opportunity to the continuation of arbitration proceedings implies implied consent to the extension of the tribunal’s mandate. In the absence of a prescribed limitation period, applications under Section 29-A(5) must be filed within a reasonable time. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When an alternate site is allotted due to the fault of the BDA, interest on differential sital value is chargeable only from the date of legal challenge, not from the original allotment. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Limitation Act. A suit for possession is not barred by limitation under Article 65 unless the defendant proves adverse possession by demonstrating clear, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession. Mere long-standing possession with permissive origin does not confer ownership rights. A counter-claim for adverse possession requires strict proof, and failure to establish hostile animus leads to its rejection. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal