The repeal of the Industrial Disputes Act and the commencement of the Industrial Relations Code does not create an adjudicatory vacuum. The existing Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals retain the jurisdiction to entertain and decide references until the new Tribunals under the Code are fully operational by virtue of Section 104 (1A) of the Code and the principles enshrined in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Karnataka High Court.
The repeal of the Industrial Disputes Act and the commencement of the Industrial Relations Code does not create an adjudicatory vacuum. The existing Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals retain the jurisdiction to entertain and decide references until the new Tribunals under the Code are fully operational by virtue of Section 104 (1A) of the Code and the principles enshrined in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Karnataka High Court.
  • 24-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Service Law. The State cannot transfer a government servant without simultaneously providing a specific alternative posting. A transfer order that merely directs an officer to report to a superior authority for future instructions is legally unsustainable. Any officer relieved without a new posting is entitled to remain in their previous position until a new assignment is provided. Karnataka High Court.
Service Law. The State cannot transfer a government servant without simultaneously providing a specific alternative posting. A transfer order that merely directs an officer to report to a superior authority for future instructions is legally unsustainable. Any officer relieved without a new posting is entitled to remain in their previous position until a new assignment is provided. Karnataka High Court.
  • 24-February-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
Karnataka Excise Rules. Licence is not a saleable commodity. The rights and liabilities arising from a private agreement between the transferor and transferee are outside the scope of the statutory rules. Once the application is filed with the requisite fees and the transfer process is triggered, the licensee can no longer control the process and withdraw. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Excise Rules. Licence is not a saleable commodity. The rights and liabilities arising from a private agreement between the transferor and transferee are outside the scope of the statutory rules. Once the application is filed with the requisite fees and the transfer process is triggered, the licensee can no longer control the process and withdraw. Karnataka High Court.
  • 24-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Jamma Malai lands in the Kodagu region represent a specific, privileged hereditary tenure for cardamom cultivation that is distinct from the State’s forest domain. Once the status of such land and the proprietary rights of the holders have been adjudicated and affirmed by a competent Civil Court in a suit involving the State, the revenue and forest authorities cannot re-classify the land as Reserved or Protected Forest. Karnataka High Court.
Jamma Malai lands in the Kodagu region represent a specific, privileged hereditary tenure for cardamom cultivation that is distinct from the State’s forest domain. Once the status of such land and the proprietary rights of the holders have been adjudicated and affirmed by a competent Civil Court in a suit involving the State, the revenue and forest authorities cannot re-classify the land as Reserved or Protected Forest. Karnataka High Court.
  • 24-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Section 148 CPC. Civil Court’s power to extend time for payment of deficit court fee is limited to a maximum of thirty days. If the plaintiff fails to pay within this period, the suit remains still-born and cannot be registered. Acceptance of deficit court fee after undue delay, without a timely extension application, is without jurisdiction and defeats the mandatory intent of the Court Fees Act. Karnataka High Court.
Section 148 CPC. Civil Court’s power to extend time for payment of deficit court fee is limited to a maximum of thirty days. If the plaintiff fails to pay within this period, the suit remains still-born and cannot be registered. Acceptance of deficit court fee after undue delay, without a timely extension application, is without jurisdiction and defeats the mandatory intent of the Court Fees Act. Karnataka High Court.
  • 24-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Order XXXVII of the CPC. Summary suit. The issuance of summons in the specific format prescribed in Form No. 4-A of Appendix B is a mandatory requirement and not a mere technicality. A general summons issued in an ordinary format cannot set the summary clock in motion against the defendant. Karnataka High Court.
Order XXXVII of the CPC. Summary suit. The issuance of summons in the specific format prescribed in Form No. 4-A of Appendix B is a mandatory requirement and not a mere technicality. A general summons issued in an ordinary format cannot set the summary clock in motion against the defendant. Karnataka High Court.
  • 23-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Suit for declaration and injunction. Failure of the plaintiff to establish absolute title does not automatically result in the dismissal of the suit for injunction. If the plaintiff proves 'settled possession' through continuous revenue entries and long-standing occupation, he is entitled to an injunction. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for declaration and injunction. Failure of the plaintiff to establish absolute title does not automatically result in the dismissal of the suit for injunction. If the plaintiff proves 'settled possession' through continuous revenue entries and long-standing occupation, he is entitled to an injunction. Karnataka High Court.
  • 23-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Companies Act. A lease agreement executed by a company's former management in favor of a related party just before the filing of a winding-up petition, involving valuable assets at a nominal rent, constitutes a fraudulent preference and is void against the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator’s right to recover such assets cannot be defeated by a narrow interpretation of limitation, especially given the statutory exclusions provided under Section 458A. Karnataka High Court.
Companies Act. A lease agreement executed by a company's former management in favor of a related party just before the filing of a winding-up petition, involving valuable assets at a nominal rent, constitutes a fraudulent preference and is void against the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator’s right to recover such assets cannot be defeated by a narrow interpretation of limitation, especially given the statutory exclusions provided under Section 458A. Karnataka High Court.
  • 24-February-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