• 

  Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Even when limitation period to challenge arbitral award under Section 34 expired during closure/vacation of Courts, provisions of Section 4 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked by the applicant. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-February-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Writ for specific performance of contract/work order cannot be issued in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there are disputed questions of fact. Supreme Court.

  • 28-February-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Public Interest Litigation initiated under the shadow of reasonable suspicion - Court may decline to entertain claims on merits or appoint an amicus curiae if the cause espoused requires immediate attention of the Court. Supreme Court.

  • 28-February-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  SARFAESI Act. Magistrate can appoint an advocate and authorise him to take possession of the secured assets and documents and to forward the same to the secured creditor. Supreme Court.

  • 26-February-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Suit based on adverse possession. A plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be claimed even by a plaintiff as sword under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-February-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Bar under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act does not apply in case of suit for declaration where clear allegations of fraud, forgery etc are made. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-February-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An intermediary who introduces accused to the complainant can not be dragged into criminal proceedings unless the element of conspiracy is alleged/established. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-February-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Policy on compassionate appointment must meet the mandate of Article 14 and 16. Children born from the second wife of a deceased employee are entitled for compassionate appointment. Supreme Court.

  • 24-February-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Challenge to an award passed in an International Commercial Arbitration can be made before Commercial Division of a Single Judge Bench of the High Court. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-February-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty or damages for failure to deposit contribution under the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Supreme Court reiterates.

  • 23-February-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  "Rash and negligent driving does not always equate to over-speeding. Even though one may be driving within the speed limit, it is conceivable that one may still be driving rashly and negligently." Allahabad High Court.

  • 23-February-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Person availing overdraft facility from Bank for day-­to-­day share and stock transactions is not a 'Consumer' since such activity is commercial in nature. Supreme Court.

  • 22-February-2022
  • Daksha Legal