Maintenance. The fact that the mother is gainfully employed does not by itself justify reducing the father's contribution towards the children's maintenance. The obligation to maintain children is shared by both parents, but their respective contributions cannot be determined merely by arithmetic division. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 403.
Maintenance. The fact that the mother is gainfully employed does not by itself justify reducing the father's contribution towards the children's maintenance. The obligation to maintain children is shared by both parents, but their respective contributions cannot be determined merely by arithmetic division. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 403.
  • 22-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The requirement of “public view” is satisfied only when the alleged caste-based utterance is made in circumstances where members of the public can witness or hear it; an utterance made inside an enclosed room, though within the school premises, without evidence of public presence or hearing, does not fulfil this essential ingredient. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 407.
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The requirement of “public view” is satisfied only when the alleged caste-based utterance is made in circumstances where members of the public can witness or hear it; an utterance made inside an enclosed room, though within the school premises, without evidence of public presence or hearing, does not fulfil this essential ingredient. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 407.
  • 22-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
Rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not amount to a final adjudication on the merits. Such rejection does not operate as res judicata against a subsequent FIR based on the same or substantially similar allegations. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 412.
Rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not amount to a final adjudication on the merits. Such rejection does not operate as res judicata against a subsequent FIR based on the same or substantially similar allegations. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 412.
  • 24-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Child Custody. Children have equal human rights traceble to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A parent cannot unilaterally take custody of a child in violation of subsisting court orders on the plea that the child’s welfare would be better served in his or her custody. Karnataka High Court
Child Custody. Children have equal human rights traceble to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A parent cannot unilaterally take custody of a child in violation of subsisting court orders on the plea that the child’s welfare would be better served in his or her custody. Karnataka High Court
  • 22-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Bangalore Development Authority Act. Individual non-development of a parcel of land does not cause the lapse of the entire Scheme under Section 27 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Bangalore Development Authority Act. Individual non-development of a parcel of land does not cause the lapse of the entire Scheme under Section 27 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
  • 21-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
In a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, the Court may permit additional evidence under Section 107 CPC where the party establishes that, despite due diligence, such evidence could not have been produced earlier; however, its admission is subject to satisfaction of the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC. Karnataka High Court.
In a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, the Court may permit additional evidence under Section 107 CPC where the party establishes that, despite due diligence, such evidence could not have been produced earlier; however, its admission is subject to satisfaction of the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC. Karnataka High Court.
  • 20-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
A Lok Adalat award passed without the presence, consent, or signatures of rival claimants is non-binding and legally unsustainable against non-signatories. Class action under Order I Rule 8 CPC cannot be invoked to treat rival, adverse title disputes over compensation as a representative ‘class action’. Supreme Court
A Lok Adalat award passed without the presence, consent, or signatures of rival claimants is non-binding and legally unsustainable against non-signatories. Class action under Order I Rule 8 CPC cannot be invoked to treat rival, adverse title disputes over compensation as a representative ‘class action’. Supreme Court
  • 22-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Tender. A challenge to a tender eligibility condition accrues when the condition is published, and not when the bidder is subsequently rejected. A bidder cannot knowingly remain inactive and later challenge tender conditions after other bidders have acquired rights and interests. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 393.
Tender. A challenge to a tender eligibility condition accrues when the condition is published, and not when the bidder is subsequently rejected. A bidder cannot knowingly remain inactive and later challenge tender conditions after other bidders have acquired rights and interests. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 393.
  • 22-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