• 

  Gratuity is paid to safeguard financial security of a person at the time of retirement. Bank cannot adjust gratuity amount payable to its employee towards outstanding loan account. Karnataka High Court.

  • 21-October-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An FIR under Section 306, IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else. Supreme Court.

  • 20-October-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Limitation to apply for cancellation of khata under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act is three years from the date of the order and not from the date of knowledge of the order. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-October-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Trademarks Act. Names of Holy Books such as Quran, Bible, Guru Granth Sahib, Ramayan cannot be claimed as a trade mark for goods or services. Supreme Court.

  • 28-October-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka High Court deprecates speculative litigation by colleges harming educational prospects of the students. Imposes exemplary costs.

  • 22-October-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Termination of an employee without following the procedure does not amount criminal breach of trust or cheating. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-October-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Exporter switching off tamper alert notifications is a serious crime. Business houses generating vested interest of business cannot be permitted to sacrifice the interest of the nation. Karnataka High Court refuses to quash criminal proceedings.

  • 22-October-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  National Calamity Contingent Duty is a surcharge which can be levied independently of the excise duty. NCCD can be levied even in the absence of levy of excise duty. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-October-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is not safe to determine the compensation relying upon those sale deeds which are nearer to Section 4 notification. Supreme Court.

  • 21-October-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Promissory estoppel. Where the change of policy is in the larger public interest, the State cannot be prevented from withdrawing an incentive which it had granted through an earlier notification. Supreme Court.

  • 18-October-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Cheque bounce case. Complainant is not expected to appear on every date of hearing and the Court cannot dismiss the complaint for default on that ground. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-October-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Cheque bounce case. Payment of interim compensation applies only in respect of offenses committed after Section 143(A) of N.I.Act came into force in the statutory book. Karnataka High Court.

  • 20-October-2022
  • Daksha Legal