• 

  An accused has a right to a fair trial before a competent and impartial Court; he does not possess a vested right to insist upon trial before a particular Judge. The principle ‘’he who hears must decide’’ cannot override the statutory scheme permitting transfer and succession of Judges in criminal proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

  • 04-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Health Insurance Scheme. Advances in medical science enable treatment without hospitalisation. Hospitalisation is merely a mode of administering treatment and an insurer cannot deny coverage for treatment connected with the insured disease solely because hospitalisation was not required. Karnataka High Court.

  • 04-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Consumer Protection Act. The District Consumer Commission is competent to take cognisance of an offence under Section 72 without directing the complainant to a separate criminal court. An application combining execution-related reliefs with allegations of non-compliance is maintainable, provided the requirements for taking cognisance are satisfied. Karnataka High Court

  • 04-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Artificial Intelligence. An adjudicatory order based even partly on unverified, fake, or AI-hallucinated judicial precedents violates the sanctity of adjudication and is liable to be set aside. Supreme Court

  • 04-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Section 56(1). A statutory revisional authority cannot reopen a decades-old order when the provision expressly limits exercise of revision to three years. Limitation Act cannot be invoked to negate and defeat the limitation prescribed under the KLR Act. Supreme Court.

  • 04-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  SARFAESI Act. When a bank or financial institution governed by the Act acquires a non-performing secured loan from an entity not covered under the Act, the loan immediately becomes a ‘’secured debt’’ enforceable under the SARFAESI Act, irrespective of its origin. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 517

  • 03-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Commercial Suits. Documents neither produced with the plaint nor subsequently permitted to be produced under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC cannot be introduced merely on the strength of an undertaking in the plaint to produce them during trial, particularly when they were admittedly in the plaintiff’s possession throughout. Karnataka High Court.

  • 03-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Seizure of Vehicles in criminal cases. Continued detention of a transport vehicle deprives its owner of livelihood and results in needless deterioration and depreciation. Once the necessary evidence is preserved through a panchnama, photographs and videography, no purpose is served by keeping the vehicle idle at the police station; it should be released subject to appropriate conditions. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 531

  • 03-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An Executing Court, while enforcing an Arbitral Award under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cannot go beyond its mandate and modify the Award at the execution stage by recalculating the interest payable under the Award. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Personal Liberty: Once the police issue a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, they cannot abandon it midway and resort to arresting the accused. Custody is warranted only when the accused/noticee fails to comply with the notice, refuses to cooperate with the investigation, or otherwise attracts circumstances justifying arrest. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 1187

  • 02-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Hindu Succession Act. The mere existence of a joint family does not establish that property purchased in the name of a woman member is joint family property unless it is proved that the purchase was made from joint family funds. Such property vests absolutely in the woman under Section 14 of the Act. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 1152

  • 01-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Sport selection. Though a writ court cannot reassess comparative sporting merit or substitute its opinion for that of an expert body, it may examine whether a sports federation discharging public duties followed its published selection policy and acted within its authority. Completion of the selection and forwarding of names do not bar judicial review; they affect only the relief to be granted. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-September-2026
  • Daksha Legal