Tender. Decision to blacklist is independent of the decision to terminate. The show cause notice must indicate the proposed decision to blacklist and the requirement of the contractor to respond to it. Supreme Court.
Tender. Decision to blacklist is independent of the decision to terminate. The show cause notice must indicate the proposed decision to blacklist and the requirement of the contractor to respond to it. Supreme Court.
  • 27-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Domestic Violence Act. A party who has expressly relinquished monetary or maintenance claims cannot revive the same claims through subsequent proceedings merely on the allegations of coercion or duress. A major daughter who was not a party to the settlement retains her independent right to seek monetary relief in accordance with law. Supreme Court
Domestic Violence Act. A party who has expressly relinquished monetary or maintenance claims cannot revive the same claims through subsequent proceedings merely on the allegations of coercion or duress. A major daughter who was not a party to the settlement retains her independent right to seek monetary relief in accordance with law. Supreme Court
  • 28-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
Criminal Law. Where an FIR is ante-timed or prepared after the police reach the scene and commence investigation, following deliberation or consultation, it loses its evidentiary value and is treated as a statement made during investigation, attracting the bar under Section 162 CrPC. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Law. Where an FIR is ante-timed or prepared after the police reach the scene and commence investigation, following deliberation or consultation, it loses its evidentiary value and is treated as a statement made during investigation, attracting the bar under Section 162 CrPC. Karnataka High Court.
  • 27-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
A Legal Services Authority or Committee organizing a Lok Adalat acts merely as a referring body for pre-litigation disputes and cannot usurp the functions of a Lok Adalat by itself taking cognizance of or passing awards in such matters. Such an award is null, void, and liable to be quashed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Karnataka High Court.
A Legal Services Authority or Committee organizing a Lok Adalat acts merely as a referring body for pre-litigation disputes and cannot usurp the functions of a Lok Adalat by itself taking cognizance of or passing awards in such matters. Such an award is null, void, and liable to be quashed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Karnataka High Court.
  • 26-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Personal Liberty. Undue delay in consideration of life convict's premature release application despite completion of the eligible sentence period. Karnataka High Court extends interim relief/parole until final administrative orders are formally passed by the State Government.
Personal Liberty. Undue delay in consideration of life convict's premature release application despite completion of the eligible sentence period. Karnataka High Court extends interim relief/parole until final administrative orders are formally passed by the State Government.
  • 25-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
A plaint in a partition suit cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-payment of Ad Valorem court fee when the question of joint possession and the applicable court fee depend upon disputed facts requiring evidence. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 443.
A plaint in a partition suit cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-payment of Ad Valorem court fee when the question of joint possession and the applicable court fee depend upon disputed facts requiring evidence. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 443.
  • 26-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Auction Sale under the SARFAESI Act: A non-statutory earnest money deposit condition incorporated in an auction notice merely to filter out non-serious bidders is not an essential eligibility requirement. An auction sale cannot be set aside solely for non-compliance with such a condition. Supreme Court.
Auction Sale under the SARFAESI Act: A non-statutory earnest money deposit condition incorporated in an auction notice merely to filter out non-serious bidders is not an essential eligibility requirement. An auction sale cannot be set aside solely for non-compliance with such a condition. Supreme Court.
  • 27-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
An advocate cannot disclose or misuse confidential communications received from a client, even after the professional relationship ends; such disclosure constitutes professional misconduct. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 435.
An advocate cannot disclose or misuse confidential communications received from a client, even after the professional relationship ends; such disclosure constitutes professional misconduct. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 435.
  • 25-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