• 

  Criminal Proceedings. Where an accident involving an earthmover causes serious injuries, the contractor in charge of the work cannot avoid criminal proceedings merely because the company owning the earthmover has not been arrayed as an accused. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Judicial review under Article 226. Where a writ petition can be decided on a pure question of law, the Court may entertain it without relegating the petitioner to avail of the substantive alternative remedy. Karnataka High Court.

  • 21-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Wild Life (Protection) Act. Criminal proceedings for offences under the Act cannot proceed where the court has taken cognizance without the mandatory complaint by an authorised officer under Section 55 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 21-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Income Tax Act – Revision under Section 263. A mere intimation under Section 143(1), revising the assessee’s return without making any statutory adjustment, does not constitute an ‘order’. Consequently, revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 cannot be invoked in respect of such intimation. Karnataka High Court.

  • 21-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act. Section 6. Where criminal offence is alleged to have been committed by a company, prosecution of its officer under the statutory vicarious-liability provision cannot be sustained when the company itself has not been arraigned as an accused. Karnataka High Court

  • 21-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Prevention of Corruption Act. The 2018 amendment to Section 19 of the Act does not require sanction where cognizance of the offence had already been taken. The amendment has retrospective application only in cases where cognizance had not been taken. Karnataka High Court.

  • 21-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A deposit of the decretal amount in Court does not by itself stop interest on such deposit. The deposit must be unconditional and freely available for withdrawal by the decree-holder to constitute payment/satisfaction. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 591

  • 21-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Section 92 CPC – Civil Court, seized of a plaint under Section 92 of the Code together with an application seeking leave to institute the suit, is not empowered to pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending disposal of the leave application. However, for compelling reasons to be recorded in writing like where facts disclose the necessity of urgent relief, notice prior to the grant of leave may be dispensed with. Supreme Court

  • 21-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. If the defendant participates in the civil proceedings and allows the stage contemplated under Section 8 to pass, the arbitration clause cannot thereafter be invoked through an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar. 1266

  • 22-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Writ jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Wakf Act is confined to disputes specifically required by the Act to be determined by the Tribunal and does not oust the High Court's constitutional power of judicial review where the Board acts without jurisdiction, in breach of mandatory procedural rules, or in disregard of binding judicial directions. Karnataka High Court.

  • 20-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Suit for partition. A defendant co-sharer seeking to include omitted joint family properties via an additional written statement cannot be barred on the procedural ground of introducing a ‘second counter-claim,’ provided the foundational burden to establish the joint/ancestral nature of the newly introduced properties remains on that co-sharer. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Where an employee is superseded and denied promotion without a formal charge sheet or active disciplinary/criminal proceedings as of the DPC date, the inaction of the employer is illegal. The employee is entitled to retrospective promotion with all consequential service and seniority benefits from the date their immediate juniors were promoted. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal