• 

  Transfer of Property Act. Section 11 which voids ‘’restriction repugnant to interest created upon transfer’’ applies only when the transfer is absolute and creates a complete interest in favour of the transferee. Non- exclusive rights over shared common facilities in a real estate project do not amount to an absolute interest. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 716

  • 24-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Income Tax Act. Mere delay in paying self-assessment or reassessed income tax even if settled after notice or enforcement steps does not automatically constitute wilful attempt to evade tax. Continuing criminal prosecution under Section 276C(2) is an abuse of process, entitling the accused to a discharge. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A defendant cannot introduce a counterclaim whether directly or by seeking an amendment to the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC after issues have been framed and the trial has commenced. Judicial discretion to entertain a late counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC is generally restricted to the pre-issue stage to prevent prejudice and endless delay. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Section 340 CrPC. A ‘’wrong statement’’ is not the same as ‘’false statement’’. A false statement necessarily involves a deliberate intent to deceive, whereas an erroneous or inadvertent statement does not, by itself, attract criminal liability. Before directing prosecution under Section 340 CrPC, the Court must record a prima facie finding that an offence under Section 195 CrPC is made out. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 291

  • 22-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Motor Vehicles Act. A borrower/permissive user of a vehicle steps directly into the shoes of the owner and is not considered a ‘third party’. In case of self-accidents, such person is not entitled for compensation unless there is insurance coverage. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Appreciation of evidence or factual findings regarding mutual contractual default and quantum of restitution falls squarely within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal. So long as the tribunal's view is a plausible one based on record evidence, Courts will not interfere under the guise of patent illegality. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is an independent, distinct statutory offence that deals specifically with the laundering, possession, or projection of ‘proceeds of crime’ as untainted property. A prior conviction in the predicate/scheduled offence does not attract the bar of double jeopardy under Section 300 Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 702

  • 22-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Highways Act. A reference under Section 35 seeking enhancement can be made only when the award of compensation is made under Section 28 of the Act. Where the compensation has been paid pursuant to the consent award passed under section 27 of the Act, reference under Section 35 is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.

  • 22-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Approval of a Resolution Plan gives the successful resolution applicant a ‘’clean slate.’’ All claims relating to the period before approval of the Resolution Plan stand extinguished unless recognised in the Resolution Plan. Operational creditors cannot enforce pre-CIRP claims through civil suits or arbitration after approval of the Resolution Plan. Supreme Court

  • 22-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Specific Relief Act. The provisos to Sections 21(5) and 22(2) override the restrictions on post-trial amendments under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Even at the appellate stage, a plaintiff may amend the plaint to claim refund of the earnest money/security deposit or compensation, so long as the suit continues to be one for specific performance. Karnataka High Court.

  • 21-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When an ex-parte ad-interim temporary injunction is subsequently vacated, proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2(a) of CPC for alleged willful disobedience cannot be proceeded with during the pendency of the main suit since continuing such proceedings prior to the final adjudication of the suit constitutes a futile exercise of jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.2026 Daksha Legal Kar 698

  • 21-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. An unmarried major daughter who is unemployed and pursuing higher education has a right to claim educational expenses from her financially capable father under Section 20. Attaining majority does not disentitle her from seeking ‘monetary relief’ as she qualifies as an 'aggrieved person’. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 685

  • 21-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal