• 

  Child custody. The question ‘what is the wish/desire of the child’ is different from the question ‘what would be in the best interest of the child’. Latter issue is to be decided taking into account all the relevant circumstances. Supreme Court.

  • 02-August-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Conscious possession of live cartridges fully knowing the consequences is essential to constitute offence under Sections 3 and 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-August-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Land Revenue Act. When grant of lands is held to be valid, embarking upon a fresh enquiry regarding the revenue entries is impermissible. Karnataka High Court.

  • 30-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When construction of building is unauthorised and without license, action of the Municipal authorities to remove the same cannot be found fault with. Karnataka High Court.

  • 30-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Though ordinarily, a later enactment may not be a safe external aid for interpreting the preceding enactment, a series of legislative exercises towards the same subject can be referred to while construing the earlier legislation. Supreme Court.

  • 29-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  SARFAESI Act. Taking possession of secured asset under Section 14 does not involve an adjudicatory process. District Magistrate and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate not a persona designate. Supreme Court.

  • 30-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. Victim need not be physically present when he accesses the offensive content already uploaded to the internet. The victim of the abuse can be deemed to be present each time he accesses it online.Kerala High Court

  • 30-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Lapse of scheme under the BDA Act. Dismissal of earlier writ petition for want of particulars does not preclude fresh writ petition with additional material/grounds. Karnataka High Court.

  • 29-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Fee Revision Committee being quasi-judicial authority must hear the school managements before passing orders revising the fee structure in the private educational institutions. Gujarat High Court.

  • 29-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Service Law. Wherever horizontal reservation of eligible candidates are not found, it is the duty of the authorities concerned to then have a vertical reservation. Karnataka High Court.

  • 30-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Trademark. Where the infringing product is visually and phonetically similar having same consumer base, the test in such a matter is not that of absolute confusion. Even likelihood of confusion is sufficient. Delhi High Court.

  • 28-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Repugnancy may arise between two enactments even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other. Test of two legislations containing contradictory provisions cannot be the determining criterion. Supreme Court.

  • 28-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal