• 

  Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Power to cancel grant must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe. Selective, belated enforcement targetting a single grantee while leaving similarly situated co-grantees undisturbed demonstrates a clear administrative bias, rendering such cancellation orders completely unsustainable. Karnataka High Court.

  • 03-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  UAPA. Clandestine funding of extremism is one of the gravest threats to National security in the present times. Courts must be circumspect in stifling investigations into allegations of economic subversion affecting national security. In such cases, investigation is not merely permissible but imperative. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An application under Section 152 CPC to correct an accidental omission in a preliminary decree cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay when the underlying property rights were actively litigated, put in issue, and answered in favour of the applicant during adjudication. The Court must rectify its ministerial error to ensure the decree conforms to the judgment. Karnataka High Court.

  • 03-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Minimum Wages Act. Revision of minimum wages under Section 5(1)(b) requires publication of proposals in the Official Gazette inviting objections, and this mandatory procedure cannot be replaced by informal meetings. By virtue of Section 69 of the Code on Wages, 2019 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, proceedings initiated under the repealed 1948 Act must continue and be concluded under that Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A court should not vacate an interim injunction at the instance of only some defendants when notices to the remaining defendants are yet to be served. Interim protection should not be dismantled in a piecemeal manner, as it may expose the property to alienation by unserved defendants. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 450

  • 30-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Negotiable Instruments Act. Once a company is ordered to be wound up and an Official Liquidator is appointed, no legal proceedings of any kind, including the proceedings under the NI Act, can be initiated or continued against the company or its management without explicit leave from the court/tribunal. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 429

  • 01-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Amendment Act to CPC which limits the extension for presenting a written defense to a strict maximum threshold of 120 days and enforces an absolute forfeiture of that right thereafter, is prospective and is applicable only to suits filed after 5.6.2025. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  RBI’s Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets. The legal validity of a corporate debt resolution strategy is governed by majority-based decision-making, not unanimity. Mere non-participation by a single minority lender in consortium review meetings does not invalidate the resolution process or the resolution plan. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 434.

  • 01-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act is a beneficial legislation. The requirement of ‘proper and verifiable proof’ must be applied liberally, particularly where an elderly person or widow produces primary or secondary evidence of the deposit. Karnataka High Court.

  • 08-July-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  While there is no absolute bar against a High Court granting bail to an accused whose bail was previously cancelled by the Supreme Court, the grant of bail must be supported by reasons demonstrating either a change in circumstances or the existence of fresh grounds not considered by the Supreme Court at the time of cancellation. Supreme Court

  • 30-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Civil disputes should not be converted into criminal prosecutions merely to exert pressure on the opposite party. Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must examine: surrounding circumstances, chronology of events, delay, improvements in allegations, and not merely the wording of the FIR. Supreme Court

  • 30-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Service Law. An employer may reject a candidate with criminal antecedents only on the basis of objective material establishing involvement in an offence involving moral turpitude. Mere suspicion, a police charge-sheet, or a compromise in a criminal case arising from a consensual relationship cannot justify denial of appointment. Supreme Court

  • 30-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal