Section 498A Cr.P.C applies ‘’live-in relationships in the nature of marriage'' between two consenting adult individuals. The safeguards against arrest and other factors as laid down in Arnesh Kumar shall be strictly applied and no person accused of committing cruelty against a woman, being either the live-in partner ‘’in the nature of marriage’’ or his relative, shall be arrested without preliminary enquiries. Supreme Court.
Section 498A Cr.P.C applies ‘’live-in relationships in the nature of marriage'' between two consenting adult individuals. The safeguards against arrest and other factors as laid down in Arnesh Kumar shall be strictly applied and no person accused of committing cruelty against a woman, being either the live-in partner ‘’in the nature of marriage’’ or his relative, shall be arrested without preliminary enquiries. Supreme Court.
  • 04-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
An order granting anticipatory bail does not automatically lapse, expire, or terminate upon the filing of a charge sheet, taking of cognizance, or issuance of summons. The protection of anticipatory bail normally continues throughout the trial unless a specific time limit was explicitly imposed in the original bail order. Karnataka High Court.
An order granting anticipatory bail does not automatically lapse, expire, or terminate upon the filing of a charge sheet, taking of cognizance, or issuance of summons. The protection of anticipatory bail normally continues throughout the trial unless a specific time limit was explicitly imposed in the original bail order. Karnataka High Court.
  • 04-August-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
Amendment of pleadings. Pre-trial amendments stand on a distinctly different footing. In a passing-off action under the Trade Marks Act, pleadings relating to the adoption of the mark, prior and continuous use, goodwill, reputation, and the likelihood of deception are fundamental to the cause of action. An amendment elaborating these material facts cannot be rejected merely because it is sought after the filing of the written statement. Karnataka High Court.
Amendment of pleadings. Pre-trial amendments stand on a distinctly different footing. In a passing-off action under the Trade Marks Act, pleadings relating to the adoption of the mark, prior and continuous use, goodwill, reputation, and the likelihood of deception are fundamental to the cause of action. An amendment elaborating these material facts cannot be rejected merely because it is sought after the filing of the written statement. Karnataka High Court.
  • 04-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. International commercial arbitration. A petition under Section 9 is maintainable against a non-signatory, including a foreign entity, where a prima facie case is made out that such entity is the alter ego of a signatory or where the corporate veil warrants piercing. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 861
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. International commercial arbitration. A petition under Section 9 is maintainable against a non-signatory, including a foreign entity, where a prima facie case is made out that such entity is the alter ego of a signatory or where the corporate veil warrants piercing. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 861
  • 04-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Hindu Law. Execution of a registered sale deed by one coparcener in favor of a stranger purchaser does not automatically extinguish constructive joint possession or prove legal ouster. Trial court cannot insist on payment of ad valorem court fee on the basis of the averments made in such sale deed. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 845
Hindu Law. Execution of a registered sale deed by one coparcener in favor of a stranger purchaser does not automatically extinguish constructive joint possession or prove legal ouster. Trial court cannot insist on payment of ad valorem court fee on the basis of the averments made in such sale deed. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 845
  • 04-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC. After recording a finding that the defendant has disclosed a substantial defence within the meaning of the provision, the Commercial Court cannot impose a condition requiring the furnishing of a bank guarantee to grant leave to defend. Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) cannot be utilized as a substitute for an attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII to secure a prospective decree. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 856
Leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC. After recording a finding that the defendant has disclosed a substantial defence within the meaning of the provision, the Commercial Court cannot impose a condition requiring the furnishing of a bank guarantee to grant leave to defend. Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) cannot be utilized as a substitute for an attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII to secure a prospective decree. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 856
  • 04-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. A mining lessee cannot reduce its liability to pay higher royalty by subjecting extracted higher-value iron ore Lumps to a crushing process that converts them into lower-value Fines prior to dispatch. Such destructive processing forms part of the manufacturing/consumption activity, triggering the liability to pay royalty on the higher value. Karnataka High Court.
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. A mining lessee cannot reduce its liability to pay higher royalty by subjecting extracted higher-value iron ore Lumps to a crushing process that converts them into lower-value Fines prior to dispatch. Such destructive processing forms part of the manufacturing/consumption activity, triggering the liability to pay royalty on the higher value. Karnataka High Court.
  • 04-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
A minor cannot be expected to respond to a public notice or independently initiate legal proceedings. Where the plaintiff fails to take steps to secure the appointment of a lawful guardian to represent the minor in the suit, the plaintiff cannot later oppose the minor's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC after the minor attains majority. Supreme Court.
A minor cannot be expected to respond to a public notice or independently initiate legal proceedings. Where the plaintiff fails to take steps to secure the appointment of a lawful guardian to represent the minor in the suit, the plaintiff cannot later oppose the minor's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC after the minor attains majority. Supreme Court.
  • 04-August-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