• 

  The validity of a compromise is determined on the date it is recorded by the Court. A subsequent breach of its terms does not invalidate a compromise decree lawfully passed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, as such breach is distinct from fraud, coercion, undue influence, or illegality in obtaining the compromise. The remedy is to execute the compromise decree. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 904

  • 05-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. International commercial arbitration. A petition under Section 9 is maintainable against a non-signatory, including a foreign entity, where a prima facie case is made out that such entity is the alter ego of a signatory or where the corporate veil warrants piercing. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 861

  • 04-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Hindu Law. Execution of a registered sale deed by one coparcener in favor of a stranger purchaser does not automatically extinguish constructive joint possession or prove legal ouster. Trial court cannot insist on payment of ad valorem court fee on the basis of the averments made in such sale deed. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 845

  • 04-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC. After recording a finding that the defendant has disclosed a substantial defence within the meaning of the provision, the Commercial Court cannot impose a condition requiring the furnishing of a bank guarantee to grant leave to defend. Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) cannot be utilized as a substitute for an attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII to secure a prospective decree. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 856

  • 04-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. A mining lessee cannot reduce its liability to pay higher royalty by subjecting extracted higher-value iron ore Lumps to a crushing process that converts them into lower-value Fines prior to dispatch. Such destructive processing forms part of the manufacturing/consumption activity, triggering the liability to pay royalty on the higher value. Karnataka High Court.

  • 04-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A minor cannot be expected to respond to a public notice or independently initiate legal proceedings. Where the plaintiff fails to take steps to secure the appointment of a lawful guardian to represent the minor in the suit, the plaintiff cannot later oppose the minor's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC after the minor attains majority. Supreme Court.

  • 04-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ‘’Neither the final report nor the framing of charges is an insurmountable bar to order further investigation when the interests of justice require it’’. Karnataka High Court entrusts the Crime Investigation Department with further investigation into allegations of sexual assault, attempted rape and brutal assault on a girl.

  • 02-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Customs Act. Though advance Ruling under Section 28J is binding only on the applicant and the jurisdictional customs authorities, the legal principles embodied therein possess persuasive value and ought to be followed in subsequent cases unless there are distinguishing facts or a change in the governing law. Madras High Court.

  • 02-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Section 125 Cr.P.C. An application under Section 125(4) alleging adultery must be decided between the order granting interim maintenance and final adjudication of such application for maintenance since adultery, if proved, takes away maintenance. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 301

  • 03-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Non refund of refundable security deposit in a failed real estate project does not amount to cheating within the meaning of Section 420 IPC especially when the arbitration award is passed determining the liabilities of both parties in terms of their contractual obligations. Supreme Court.

  • 05-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Prevention of Corrutpion Act. Demand or recovery need not be conclusively established at FIR stage. Absence of proof regarding demand or recovery may become relevant for discharge or acquittal, but it is not by itself a ground for quashing the FIR. The High Court cannot conduct a detailed assessment of evidence, credibility of witnesses or probabilities while deciding a Section 482 petition. Supreme Court

  • 04-August-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ‘’The doctrine of reading down is a constitutional bridge between legislative supremacy and judicial review’’. Karnataka High Court while reading down the Karnataka amendment to CPC. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 797

  • 31-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal