Hon’ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju celebrates her 55th birthday today.
Hon’ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju: Afirst-generation lawyer, was born in 12thAugust 1971 in New Delhi. She enrolled at Sardar Patel Vidyalaya, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi in 1989 from which she obtained her High School Certificate. She read Political Science for her Bachelor’s degree from Lady Shriram College, University of Delhi in 1992 and graduated with Honours. Ms Ganju then obtained her Bachelor of Law degree in 1995 from the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi and enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi in the same year. Ms Ganju continued her education in law in the United Kingdom receiving the British Chevening scholarship, awarded by the British High Commission (British Council), New Delhi in 1999. This allowed her to complete a course in English, and EC Commercial Law and Practice, from the College of Law at York. Ms Ganju also pursued an online Diploma in International Acquisitions and Mergers at College of Law, U.K. in 2005. In 2018, she was certified as a Mediator at Samadhan: Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre. Thereafter, Ms. Ganju attended an advanced International Seminar on Mediating Effectively at Pepperdine Law School – Strauss Institute of Dispute Resolution, USA in June, 2018.
Ms Ganju was appointed an Executive Member of the Women in Law and Litigation (WILL) Association in 2019. She has also served on the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Committee for Manipal Hospitals, New Delhi and Estocorp Group of Companies in New Delhi.
Before being elevated to the Bench, Ms Ganju practiced primarily before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. She also steered cases before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other courts in Delhi. In addition to this, she advised and undertook matters in a wide range of legal areas including property, inheritance law, civil laws, arbitration, company, criminal and intellectual property litigation under the original, appellate and writ jurisdictions of the Courts at Delhi and its neighbouring jurisdictions. Ms Ganju has also worked extensively in advising clients on a variety of legal issues concerning their business transactions, contractual matters and commercial and legal issues. She has also assisted the Delhi High Court as an Arbitrator, Mediator and Amicus Curiae in third party disputes.
Ms Ganju had been invited as a speaker at various conferences in India including the Legal India Conference 2018 on Alternate Dispute Redressal Mechanisms and Indian Oil Corporation’s Research & Development Centre in a seminar on Provision and Management of Intellectual Property Rights in the year 2007.
Tara Vitasta Ganju was appointed as a Permanent Judge of the Delhi High Court on May 18, 2022.
Her Lordship transferred to Karnataka High Court and assumed the office as the Judge of the Karnataka High Court on 28.10.2025.
Important Judgements delivered by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju.
Motor Vehicles Act. Income Tax Returns are reliable statutory documents that cannot be disregarded by a Claims Tribunal for assessing the income of a deceased person merely because supporting educational certificates or business licenses were not produced. Karnataka High Court.
Rejection of plaint. A plaintiff cannot selectively challenge a recent transaction while ignoring the foundational registered sale deeds executed by the predecessors-in-title decades earlier; failure to challenge the root of the title within the prescribed period renders any subsequent challenge to the derivative title barred by limitation. Karnataka High Court.
A suit for partition coupled with a prayer for cancellation of a sale deed is required to be instituted within the period of three years under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act. Where the suit is instituted beyond the period of limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected as being barred by law. Karnataka High Court.
A suit for partition coupled with a prayer for cancellation of a sale deed is required to be instituted within the period of three years under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act. Where the suit is instituted beyond the period of limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected as being barred by law. Karnataka High Court.
Specific performance. While there is a general presumption that time is not of the essence, this presumption stands rebutted where the parties, by express terms of the contract, employ clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal language indicating their intention to prescribe a definite and mandatory period for performance. Karnataka High Court.
Rejection of plaint. A plaintiff cannot selectively challenge a recent transaction while ignoring the foundational registered sale deeds executed by the predecessors-in-title decades earlier; failure to challenge the root of the title within the prescribed period renders any subsequent challenge to the derivative title barred by limitation. Karnataka High Court.
Stamp Act. The authority to impound a document for insufficient stamp duty applies exclusively to the ‘original instrument’. A photocopy cannot be impounded, nor can it be validated by the payment of duty and penalty to make it admissible as secondary evidence. Karnataka High Court.
Commercial Courts Act. Bar under Section 8 against challenge to interlocutory orders does not curtail the constitutional supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution though interference to be limited to errors causing manifest injustice. Karnataka High Court.
Land acquisition. The power of eminent domain can be exercised by the State only for a legitimate ‘public purpose’ and must strictly adhere to the ‘due process of law.’ Any acquisition initiated on the basis of an incomplete application or conducted with undue haste to benefit a private entity at the cost of original landowners is arbitrary, violates the principles of natural justice, and is liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Transfer of Property Act. Section 11 which voids ‘’restriction repugnant to interest created upon transfer’’ applies only when the transfer is absolute and creates a complete interest in favour of the transferee. Non- exclusive rights over shared common facilities in a real estate project do not amount to an absolute interest. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. Permanent functional disability to the extent of 82% caused to a housewife. Karnataka High Court holds that compensation must include the lifelong cost of caregiving and awards Rs 20 lakhs towards ‘caretaker expenses’, taking into account the expected need for care over a 50-year lifespan.
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cannot reject or downscale a permanent physical disability assessment solely because the testifying medical expert was not the original treating doctor. If a qualified medical professional subsequently examines the patient and reviews their medical history, their assessment is legally valid. Karnataka High Court.
Adverse Possession. Possession that originates under an agreement of sale or any other permissive or derivative arrangement cannot ripen into adverse possession unless the occupant clearly, unequivocally, and hostilely repudiates the true owner’s title, and such repudiation is brought to the owner’s knowledge. Karnataka High Court.
Land Acquisition. Where direct evidence in the form of contemporaneous sale instances or exemplars pertaining to the same village is available, such evidence constitutes the most desirable and preferred basis for determination of market value. Karnataka High Court.
Evidence Act. Where some defendants support the case of the plaintiff and other defendants contest, the supporting defendants must first cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses before the contesting defendant. Permitting supportive defendants to cross-examine after the contesting defendant may enable them to fill lacunae left in the earlier cross-examination and cause prejudice to the contesting party. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. A person who asserts an independent title to the subject property through a registered instrument is a ‘proper party’ under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC. Although such a person may not be a party to the underlying agreement to sell, their impleadment is essential to ensure a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute and to avoid the risk of conflicting judicial findings or a multiplicity of subsequent litigations regarding the same property. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is supervisory and narrower than the scope under Section 34. The Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own interpretation of the contract in place of that adopted by the Arbitral Tribunal, so long as the Tribunal’s view is a ‘plausible’ or ‘possible’ one. Karnataka High Court
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Interpretation of a contract is a matter for an Arbitrator to determine. Even if the interpretation gives rise to an erroneous application of law, the Courts will generally not interfere, unless the error is palpably perverse or illegal and goes to the root of the matter. Delhi High Court.
Evidence Act. Where some defendants support the case of the plaintiff and other defendants contest, the supporting defendants must first cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses before the contesting defendant. Permitting supportive defendants to cross-examine after the contesting defendant may enable them to fill lacunae left in the earlier cross-examination and cause prejudice to the contesting party. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. Assessment of physical disability made by a qualified ‘Medical Practitioner’ can validly be relied upon. Such assessment cannot be rejected merely because the doctor is not an Orthopaedic Surgeon. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. While computing compensation in cases involving the death of a housewife, addition towards future prospects is permissible. The contribution of a housewife to the care, welfare and upbringing of the family increases with age and experience, and therefore future prospects must be added to the notional income while assessing loss of dependency. Karnataka High Court.
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. Extension of time to file Written Statement beyond the prescribed period can be granted only in exceptional cases upon showing cogent and bona fide reasons. Mere change of Advocate or negligence cannot justify condonation of enormous delay, as it defeats the legislative object of expeditious disposal of civil suits. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. A driving licence covers ‘class of vehicle’ and not ‘specific type’. Light Motor Vehicle includes transport vehicles falling within that class and a person holding a valid LMV licence is legally competent to drive such transport vehicles and no separate transport endorsement is necessary. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. In appeals arising out of awards passed under the Act, the Court is required to apply and examine the law prevailing as on the date of consideration of the appeal. The determination of compensation must be made in accordance with the contemporaneous legal position governing the field. Karnataka High Court.
A suit for partition coupled with a prayer for cancellation of a sale deed is required to be instituted within the period of three years under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act. Where the suit is instituted beyond the period of limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected as being barred by law. Karnataka High Court.
Preventive detention. Failure to specifically state the grounds of detention in the Detention Order vitiates the exercise of preventive detention. Preventive detention cannot be invoked merely on the existence of pending criminal cases, particularly when the allegations are capable of being effectively addressed under the ordinary criminal law. Karnataka High Court.
Habeas Corpus. Custody of child with father cannot be termed as illegal detention since the issue can be considered by a competent Family Court. Karnataka High Court
Specific performance. While there is a general presumption that time is not of the essence, this presumption stands rebutted where the parties, by express terms of the contract, employ clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal language indicating their intention to prescribe a definite and mandatory period for performance. Karnataka High Court.
The Courts and Tribunals have inherent power to recall their own orders or judgments if those orders were obtained by fraud, even when statutory review is not available or has been exhausted in the earlier round of litigation. Karnataka High Court.
Rejection of plaint. A plaintiff cannot selectively challenge a recent transaction while ignoring the foundational registered sale deeds executed by the predecessors-in-title decades earlier; failure to challenge the root of the title within the prescribed period renders any subsequent challenge to the derivative title barred by limitation. Karnataka High Court.
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.
Stamp Act. The authority to impound a document for insufficient stamp duty applies exclusively to the ‘original instrument’. A photocopy cannot be impounded, nor can it be validated by the payment of duty and penalty to make it admissible as secondary evidence. Karnataka High Court.
Land acquisition. The power of eminent domain can be exercised by the State only for a legitimate ‘public purpose’ and must strictly adhere to the ‘due process of law.’ Any acquisition initiated on the basis of an incomplete application or conducted with undue haste to benefit a private entity at the cost of original landowners is arbitrary, violates the principles of natural justice, and is liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Constitution of India. A petition under Article 227 is not maintainable against an order of a Civil Court refusing to grant ex-parte injunction when a specific statutory remedy is available under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. High Courts must refrain from exercising their power of superintendence in such cases as a matter of judicial discipline. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. A person who asserts an independent title to the subject property through a registered instrument is a ‘proper party’ under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC. Although such a person may not be a party to the underlying agreement to sell, their impleadment is essential to ensure a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute and to avoid the risk of conflicting judicial findings or a multiplicity of subsequent litigations regarding the same property. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Stamp Act. Where the parties are already in possession of the property prior to the agreement, or where possession is not delivered under the document, the document cannot be subjected to the higher stamp duty and penalty associated with ‘possession delivered’ agreement. Karnataka High Court.
Industrial Disputes Act. A finding on the fairness and propriety of a domestic enquiry recorded in proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) operates as res judicata in subsequent proceedings under Section 10, provided that the finding was reached after a comprehensive enquiry where parties were permitted to lead oral and documentary evidence. Karnataka High Court.
BDA development scheme does not lapse if substantially implemented. Once significant land is taken, layouts formed, sites allotted, and possession lawfully vested in the State, the acquisition cannot be challenged for lapse merely because all land was not used within five years. Karnataka High Court.
Land acquisition. A landowner who has unequivocally expressed ‘No Objection’ to the land acquisition proceedings and sought compensation is not entitled to subsequently seek deletion of their lands from the acquisition. The deletion of such lands cannot be justified on the principle of negative equality, especially when the land forms a large, compact, vacant block suitable for the layout, and any administrative order for deletion is without a proper BDA Board resolution. Karnataka High Court.
Service Law. Seniority in a service cadre must be determined by the employee’s actual date of entry into that cadre. A rule granting a notional appointment date or weightage of past service is arbitrary and void if it confers seniority from a time when the employee was not yet ‘born in the cadre.’ Any such weightage can operate only for assessing eligibility for promotion, not for fixing inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. Karnataka High Court.
In a suit for partition, no period of limitation is prescribed, as the right to seek partition is an incident of joint ownership, giving every co-sharer a continuing cause of action to claim partition whenever they choose to sever their share from the joint property. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. Interest awarded under Section 171 must be just, fair and reasonable. In death and grievous injury claims, compensation should ordinarily carry interest at 9% per annum, Karnataka High Court reiterates.
Motor Vehicles Act. Future prospects can be awarded even to cases where the deceased was not employed. No person can remain as static since there is always an incessant effort to enhance one’s income for sustenance and income. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Non-impleadment of firm as party before the arbitrator is not fatal where all partners are already parties. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Interference with Arbitral Award is permissible only when the award is patent illegal, which is limited to situations where the findings of the arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or when the conscience of the Court is shocked, or when the illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Interpretation of a contract is a matter for an Arbitrator to determine. Even if such interpretation gives rise to an erroneous application of law, the Courts will generally not interfere, unless the error is palpably perverse or illegal and goes to the root of the matter. (Ref). Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In commercial arbitration matters, delay in filing appeals under Section 37 can be condoned only by way of exception and not as a rule. ‘Sufficient cause’ is not flexible so as to cover long delays, which are beyond the period provided for in the appeal. Karnataka High Court.
Plaintiff can seek specific performance by amending the plaint, even where the suit was originally filed for refund of the sale consideration. Where the plaint already contains all the material facts and discloses a complete cause of action for specific performance of an agreement to sell, omission of the specific relief prayer due to counsel’s oversight or erroneous legal advice is a curable procedural defect. Karnataka High Court.
A trial court’s order granting or refusing to grant ex-parte injunction order under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC can be questioned only by way of an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. A comprehensive motor insurance policy covers inter se tortious liability between spouses. Where a wife dies in a motor accident caused by the negligent driving of her husband, her legal representatives are entitled to claim compensation from the insurer. Karnataka High Court.
Daksha Legal 