• 

  Procedure to be followed by the Magistrate when a ‘B’ report is filed pursuant to a reference made to the Investigating Officer under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court issues detailed guidelines.

  • 02-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Service Law – Prescribed Qualification. Termination for want of the prescribed qualification is distinct from termination by way of disciplinary punishment. The former does not require a disciplinary enquiry. An employee who lacks the requisite qualification and fails to acquire it despite being given an opportunity has no vested right to continue in the post. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  IBC. Fraud or collusion by the original insolvency applicant does not automatically warrant termination of the entire CIRP. The Adjudicating Authority may disallow the original applicant from participating in the proceedings and permit the CIRP to continue in the interests of all stakeholders, thereby subserving the larger objective of resolving the insolvency of the corporate debtor. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 669

  • 02-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A government authority cannot recover alleged excess payments from a contractor’s dues under a separate contract unless such appropriation is authorised by the terms governing the contracts, to which the contractor has consented, or by any provision of law. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 692

  • 02-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Negotiable Instruments Act. ‘Giving of notice’ is different from ‘receiving of notice’. Where the sender has dispatched the notice by registered post to the correct address, service may be deemed to have been effected unless it is established that the notice was not, in fact, served. Supreme Court.

  • 06-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Evidence Act. The status of the witness has no relevance insofar the oral testimony is concerned, since there is no presumption that a person having some political status would only speak truth before Court. Supreme Court.

  • 01-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Land Acquisition – Acquisition decades ago for Defence purposes. A discrepancy in the survey number mentioned in a Gazette notification cannot, by itself, defeat the Government’s established title where the acquisition is otherwise substantiated by the Military Land Register and contemporaneous acquisition records. A decree of a Civil Court in a private dispute cannot confer title against the Government. Karnataka High Court.

  • 29-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ‘’National security is paramount and must take precedence over individual interests/personal rights.’’ Dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A L.A. Act is sustainable when the Government’s subjective satisfaction regarding urgency is founded on sufficient material especially where the acquisition is for a public purpose requiring immediate action. Karnataka High Court.

  • 29-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Settlement in matrimonial disputes. Non-fulfilment of subsequent oral assurances dehors the written agreement does not constitute valid grounds to avoid the settlement between the parties entered before the Court. Supreme Court.

  • 28-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ‘’The premature-release process for eligible prisoners must be timely and accountable’’. Supreme Court directs an automated e-Prisons system to prevent administrative delays and ensure automatic consideration of cases according to the applicable remission policies.

  • 26-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consideration of defence material, including sale deeds or other title documents, would necessarily involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact, which fall squarely within the domain of investigation and, if necessary, trial. The High Court cannot scuttle criminal proceedings by holding a mini-trial. Supreme Court.

  • 26-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  N. I. Act. When the offence under Section 138 stands established and is upheld, the revisional court cannot show unwarranted lenience by directing the accused to pay only the cheque amount without imposing any penalty or imprisonment. Supreme Court.

  • 26-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal