Land Acquisition. Judicial intervention under Article 226 must balance procedural irregularity with ground realities to avoid unsettling settled transactions. Where possession has been taken and third-party rights have accrued and industrial development has intervened, the acquisition cannot be nullified. Karnataka High Court.
Land Acquisition. Judicial intervention under Article 226 must balance procedural irregularity with ground realities to avoid unsettling settled transactions. Where possession has been taken and third-party rights have accrued and industrial development has intervened, the acquisition cannot be nullified. Karnataka High Court.
  • 22-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Personal liberty. ‘’Preventive detention cannot be converted into a parallel mechanism for cancellation of bail.’’ Where a person already stands enlarged on bail, the Detaining Authority must demonstrate, from cogent and proximate material, a compelling necessity for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of preventive detention. Karnataka High Court.
Personal liberty. ‘’Preventive detention cannot be converted into a parallel mechanism for cancellation of bail.’’ Where a person already stands enlarged on bail, the Detaining Authority must demonstrate, from cogent and proximate material, a compelling necessity for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of preventive detention. Karnataka High Court.
  • 22-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
Judicial review under Article 226. Where a writ petition can be decided on a pure question of law, the Court may entertain it without relegating the petitioner to avail of the substantive alternative remedy. Karnataka High Court.
Judicial review under Article 226. Where a writ petition can be decided on a pure question of law, the Court may entertain it without relegating the petitioner to avail of the substantive alternative remedy. Karnataka High Court.
  • 21-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Wild Life (Protection) Act. Criminal proceedings for offences under the Act cannot proceed where the court has taken cognizance without the mandatory complaint by an authorised officer under Section 55 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Wild Life (Protection) Act. Criminal proceedings for offences under the Act cannot proceed where the court has taken cognizance without the mandatory complaint by an authorised officer under Section 55 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
  • 21-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Income Tax Act – Revision under Section 263. A mere intimation under Section 143(1), revising the assessee’s return without making any statutory adjustment, does not constitute an ‘order’. Consequently, revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 cannot be invoked in respect of such intimation. Karnataka High Court.
Income Tax Act – Revision under Section 263. A mere intimation under Section 143(1), revising the assessee’s return without making any statutory adjustment, does not constitute an ‘order’. Consequently, revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 cannot be invoked in respect of such intimation. Karnataka High Court.
  • 21-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
A deposit of the decretal amount in Court does not by itself stop interest on such deposit. The deposit must be unconditional and freely available for withdrawal by the decree-holder to constitute payment/satisfaction. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 591
A deposit of the decretal amount in Court does not by itself stop interest on such deposit. The deposit must be unconditional and freely available for withdrawal by the decree-holder to constitute payment/satisfaction. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 591
  • 21-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. If the defendant participates in the civil proceedings and allows the stage contemplated under Section 8 to pass, the arbitration clause cannot thereafter be invoked through an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar. 1266
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. If the defendant participates in the civil proceedings and allows the stage contemplated under Section 8 to pass, the arbitration clause cannot thereafter be invoked through an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar. 1266
  • 22-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Writ jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Wakf Act is confined to disputes specifically required by the Act to be determined by the Tribunal and does not oust the High Court's constitutional power of judicial review where the Board acts without jurisdiction, in breach of mandatory procedural rules, or in disregard of binding judicial directions. Karnataka High Court.
Writ jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Wakf Act is confined to disputes specifically required by the Act to be determined by the Tribunal and does not oust the High Court's constitutional power of judicial review where the Board acts without jurisdiction, in breach of mandatory procedural rules, or in disregard of binding judicial directions. Karnataka High Court.
  • 20-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