• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Interference with Arbitral Award is permissible only when the award is patent illegal, which is limited to situations where the findings of the arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or when the conscience of the Court is shocked, or when the illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter. Karnataka High Court.

  • 27-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  'Before any representative government can count votes, it must first know whose votes may be counted.' Supreme Court upholds Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

  • 27-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Mere pendency of civil dispute is not a ground to refuse sanction of building plan. Karnataka High Court. 2022 Daksha Legal Kar 1

  • 27-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Agreement of sale, without any condition that the transaction would be proceeded after obtaining prior permission from the Government, amounts to ‘transfer’ and hence void. Consequently, suit for specific performance of such an agreement is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 147-150

  • 26-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Negotiable Instruments Act. Cheque issued towards refund of advance sale consideration upon the failure to execute the sale deed, attracts the provisions of the Act. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 139-146

  • 26-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Evidence Act. Where some defendants support the case of the plaintiff and other defendants contest, the supporting defendants must first cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses before the contesting defendant. Permitting supportive defendants to cross-examine after the contesting defendant may enable them to fill lacunae left in the earlier cross-examination and cause prejudice to the contesting party. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 129-138

  • 26-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Service Law. An order of suspension against a public servant cannot continue indefinitely, particularly when the suspension is based solely on the pendency of a criminal case and no domestic disciplinary proceedings have been initiated within a reasonable timeframe. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 110-128

  • 26-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Rejection of plaint. A plaintiff cannot selectively challenge a recent transaction while ignoring the foundational registered sale deeds executed by the predecessors-in-title decades earlier; failure to challenge the root of the title within the prescribed period renders any subsequent challenge to the derivative title barred by limitation. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 97-109.

  • 25-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A suit for partition coupled with a prayer for cancellation of a sale deed is required to be instituted within the period of three years under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act. Where the suit is instituted beyond the period of limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected as being barred by law. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 97-109.

  • 25-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India. 1978 Daksha Legal SC 1

  • 25-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Specific Relief Act. It is not mandatory for a plaintiff to move an application under Section 28 to annul the judgement since the Court can treat the contract as having rescinded for non-compliance of the condition in the decree. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 114-124.

  • 25-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala - 1973 Daksha Legal 1-1240

  • 25-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal