• 

  Submission of Inquest Report does not terminate the proceedings under Section 174 CrPC. The Investigating Officer is legally bound to independently complete the investigation and submit a Final Report before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 963

  • 10-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Partnership Act. A partnership consisting of only two partners automatically dissolves upon the death of either partner, notwithstanding any clause to the contrary. Legal heirs do not automatically become partners, and induction of a new partner constitutes a fresh partnership. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 970.

  • 10-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Negotiable Instruments Act. In exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence as though sitting in appeal and overturn concurrent convictions under Section 138, unless the findings suffer from manifest perversity, patent illegality, or a glaring error. Supreme Court.

  • 08-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. The court should not allow the provision to become a handy tool for a party to the suit proceedings to prolong the litigation. The provision cannot be invoked on the spacious ground that recalling the witness or reopening the evidence would not prejudice the other side. Supreme Court.

  • 08-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Stamp duty on an agreement to sell with possession, as if it were a conveyance, is leviable only where possession is delivered pursuant to the agreement. Where the purchaser was already in possession as a tenant and the tenancy was not surrendered, stamp duty equivalent to a conveyance is not payable. Supreme Court.

  • 08-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act — Section 11(6). A fresh application under Section 11(6) on the same cause of action is barred by Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC if the earlier application was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh. The bar, founded on public policy, applies to proceedings under Section 11. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 314

  • 10-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. A non-signatory to an arbitration agreement can be treated as a ‘’veritable party’’ where his legal relationship, conduct, participation in performance, and obligations form an integral part of a composite transaction and demonstrate an intention to be bound by the arbitration agreement. Supreme Court.

  • 08-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Precedents. The law declared by a Court will have a retrospective effect if not otherwise stated to be so specifically. Supreme Court.

  • 06-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Service Law. A public employee cannot be terminated merely because a criminal case is pending against him. Such an order does not become valid by a subsequent conviction, as the legality of the termination must be judged on the facts existing on the date it was made. Supreme Court.

  • 11-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Service Law. Doctrine of Ratification. A resignation accepted by an unauthorized officer can be validated by subsequent ratification by the competent authority, and an employee who has acted upon the resignation cannot later withdraw it after it has become effective. Supreme Court

  • 12-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Prevention of Money Laundering Act. A writ petition under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable to challenge the legality of an ECIR and all consequential proceedings. An ECIR is amenable to judicial review notwithstanding its description as an ‘’internal administrative document’’, as it forms the basis for coercive measures such as search, seizure, attachment, and deprivation of personal liberty. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 943

  • 05-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Negotiable Instruments Act. Failure to reply to the statutory notice under Section 138 gives rise to an adverse inference against the accused. Unless the accused specifically pleads in the reply notice that the complainant lacked the financial capacity to advance the loan, the complainant cannot be expected to adduce evidence establishing such financial capacity. Supreme Court.

  • 07-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal