• 

  Though a non-citizen cannot claim fundamental right to public employment exclusively reserved for Indian citizens, on facts, in the absence of any statutory provision or service regulation expressly prohibiting the appointment of non-citizens, termination solely on the ground of citizenship is arbitrary. Madras High Court.

  • 02-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Constitution of India. Non-citizens and refugees possess the locus standi under Article 226 to challenge arbitrary State actions that infringe upon their rights under Articles 14 and 21. Madras High Court.

  • 05-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Companies Act. The Court does not sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of a company’s shareholders in matters of revival. However, it is incumbent upon the Court to examine whether the proposed revival of a company in liquidation is a bona fide endeavour, serves the public interest, and conforms to accepted standards of commercial morality. Karnataka High Court.

  • 03-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A statutory body cannot derive benefit from its own default. Where an allottee has paid the allotment price but the authority fails to hand over vacant and encumbrance free possession of a site for several years, the authority is legally barred from demanding 're-allotment' fees at current market rates. Karnataka High Court.

  • 03-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. An order for the resumption and restoration of land not supported by original grant records or authentic copies is unsustainable. A claim for resumption of land cannot be entertained after an inordinate delay especially when the alienation was carried out through registered sale deeds for valuable consideration. Karnataka High Court.

  • 03-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A tender-inviting authority is entitled to reject a bid as non-responsive where the bidder fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of the tender document, particularly when the tender conditions are not under challenge and the decision-making process is not proved to be arbitrary, perverse or illegal. Karnataka High Court.

  • 03-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Challenge to land acquisition. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to resolve complex disputes regarding title or allegations of fraud in previous settlements, as such matters involve disputed questions of fact that must be adjudicated in a properly instituted civil suit. Claims brought after an inordinate delay are liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An application for the extension of an Arbitral Tribunal's mandate or the substitution of an arbitrator under Section 29A lies exclusively before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. This jurisdiction remains constant regardless of whether the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted by the Supreme Court or a High Court or by the parties themselves. Supreme Court.

  • 02-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Contract Act. Offer and acceptance. Absence of a formal or express communication of acceptance does not invalidate a contract, especially when the proposer has not insisted on a specific mode of acceptance within a reasonable time or alleged any breach of the stipulated conditions. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Wakf Act. The Waqf Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate only in respect of properties already included in the official 'list of auqaf' published or registered under the Act. If a property is neither listed nor registered, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit concerning its status or a suit for injunction simpliciter. In such cases, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted. Supreme Court.

  • 02-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Industrial Disputes Act. An apprentice appointed under a company scheme is a ‘workman’. The muster roll, wage register, and the management’s admission of ESI contributions establish the status and the purported apprenticeship merely a camouflage cannot deny such workman the benefits of permanent employment. Madras High Court.

  • 31-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Land acquisition. Though a pragmatic approach may be adopted, courts cannot bypass the mandatory requirements of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. An inordinate, unexplained delay cannot be condoned on vague pleas of poverty or displacement, as it would revive settled rights, undermine finality, and erode legal certainty. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal