Legislative power to override Judicial decisions. The Legislature cannot, under the guise of a validating enactment, nullify a judgment of the Court or legitimise a recruitment process judicially declared illegal on account of rampant corruption and blatant nepotism. Such legislative interference amounts to an impermissible exercise of judicial power and violates the rule of law. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 810.
Legislative power to override Judicial decisions. The Legislature cannot, under the guise of a validating enactment, nullify a judgment of the Court or legitimise a recruitment process judicially declared illegal on account of rampant corruption and blatant nepotism. Such legislative interference amounts to an impermissible exercise of judicial power and violates the rule of law. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 810.
  • 30-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Sections 4 and 16. Where an arbitration agreement stipulates a three-member arbitral tribunal, a party who consents to the appointment of a sole arbitrator and participates in the proceedings without timely objection is deemed to have waived its right to insist upon a three-member tribunal thus precluding a belated challenge to the composition of the arbitral tribunal. Supreme Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Sections 4 and 16. Where an arbitration agreement stipulates a three-member arbitral tribunal, a party who consents to the appointment of a sole arbitrator and participates in the proceedings without timely objection is deemed to have waived its right to insist upon a three-member tribunal thus precluding a belated challenge to the composition of the arbitral tribunal. Supreme Court.
  • 29-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Why is a regime-change revolution difficult in India?
Why is a regime-change revolution difficult in India?
  • 21-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Article
News
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Section 29A. The power to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal vests exclusively in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district or the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction, as defined under Section 2(1)(e). The Chief Justice of the High Court or the designate exercising powers under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator has no jurisdiction to grant such extension. Supreme Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Section 29A. The power to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal vests exclusively in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district or the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction, as defined under Section 2(1)(e). The Chief Justice of the High Court or the designate exercising powers under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator has no jurisdiction to grant such extension. Supreme Court.
  • 29-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
The establishment and expansion of prisons must be viewed not merely as administrative measures to accommodate prisoners, but as integral components of the criminal justice system aimed at their reformation, rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into society. Karnataka High Court while upholding land acquisition.
The establishment and expansion of prisons must be viewed not merely as administrative measures to accommodate prisoners, but as integral components of the criminal justice system aimed at their reformation, rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into society. Karnataka High Court while upholding land acquisition.
  • 29-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Interim monetary relief cannot be granted merely on allegations of domestic violence without prima facie material establishing domestic violence and consequential monetary loss. Where the wife is gainfully employed, earns sufficient income to meet her expenses and receives house rent allowance from her employer, she cannot claim additional monetary relief towards alternative accommodation without establishing its necessity and the loss suffered. Karnataka High Court.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Interim monetary relief cannot be granted merely on allegations of domestic violence without prima facie material establishing domestic violence and consequential monetary loss. Where the wife is gainfully employed, earns sufficient income to meet her expenses and receives house rent allowance from her employer, she cannot claim additional monetary relief towards alternative accommodation without establishing its necessity and the loss suffered. Karnataka High Court.
  • 30-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Once a marriage is dissolved by a valid decree of divorce, the domestic relationship comes to an end, and the statutory right of residence in a ‘shared household’ under Section 17 cannot be asserted as a perpetual right. Even an earlier interim protection order cannot confer an independent right of residence. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 1509
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Once a marriage is dissolved by a valid decree of divorce, the domestic relationship comes to an end, and the statutory right of residence in a ‘shared household’ under Section 17 cannot be asserted as a perpetual right. Even an earlier interim protection order cannot confer an independent right of residence. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 1509
  • 30-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Land Acquisition Act. Consideration of objections under Section 5-A does not constitute a judicial or quasi-judicial adjudication and a declaration under Section 6 does not require a separately recorded prior decision or an elaborate statement of reasons. Karnataka High Court.
Land Acquisition Act. Consideration of objections under Section 5-A does not constitute a judicial or quasi-judicial adjudication and a declaration under Section 6 does not require a separately recorded prior decision or an elaborate statement of reasons. Karnataka High Court.
  • 29-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
CPC. Summons returned with the postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’, despite being sent to the correct address, raises a rebuttable presumption of valid service, particularly when the defendant resides with a co-defendant. A defendant who fails to establish sufficient cause for non-appearance may participate in the proceedings only from the stage at which he appears and cannot claim reopening of earlier proceedings as a matter of right. Karnataka High Court.
CPC. Summons returned with the postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’, despite being sent to the correct address, raises a rebuttable presumption of valid service, particularly when the defendant resides with a co-defendant. A defendant who fails to establish sufficient cause for non-appearance may participate in the proceedings only from the stage at which he appears and cannot claim reopening of earlier proceedings as a matter of right. Karnataka High Court.
  • 29-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement

Become A Member Get Instant Update

Daksha Legal Seminars

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
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
'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