• 

  SARFAESI Act. A public auction conducted by a secured creditor must be fair, transparent, and inspire public confidence. Cancellation of an auction solely on the ground of pending litigation, with a view to favouring the borrower, is arbitrary and unsustainable. Such arbitrary rejection of a bid or termination of the sale process is amenable to judicial review. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 372

  • 25-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Once the death of a party whose share has been determined under a preliminary decree is brought to the Court's notice and a Will is set up, the Court must determine whether the deceased died intestate or under a valid Will. If the Will is duly proved, the quantified share devolves upon the legatees in accordance with the testamentary disposition. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 391

  • 25-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Knowledge of the existence of an award’ cannot be substituted for the statutory requirement of ‘receipt of the award’. Limitation under Section 34(3) to challenge an arbitral award begins only upon actual receipt of the signed award, and not from its oral pronouncement or receipt of the meeting minutes. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 395

  • 25-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cannot reject or downscale a permanent physical disability assessment solely because the testifying medical expert was not the original treating doctor. If a qualified medical professional subsequently examines the patient and reviews their medical history, their assessment is legally valid. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  IBC Act. The moratorium contemplated under Section 96 takes effect immediately upon the filing of an application under Section 94. During the subsistence of such moratorium, the Debt Recovery Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to continue or entertain proceedings against the borrower under the SARFAESI Act. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 367

  • 25-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Provincial Insolvency Act. Mere filing or pendency of an insolvency petition does not operate as an automatic statutory bar or trigger a stay against parallel recovery suits initiated by creditors. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ‘Premium FAR’ under the KT&CP Act is constitutionally valid. Empowering the State to permit prospective additional construction upon the payment of premium charges cannot be equated to an illegal regularization scheme. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Specific performance. ‘Readiness’ denotes the plaintiff’s financial capacity to perform the contract, while ‘willingness’ relates to the plaintiff’s conduct and intention to fulfil contractual obligations. Although actual deposit of the consideration amount is not necessary, the plaintiff must adduce reliable and satisfactory evidence demonstrating the availability of sufficient funds to complete the transaction at the relevant time. Supreme Court.

  • 24-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A review petition cannot be founded on the repetition of arguments which were available at the time of the original hearing and were either expressly considered or are deemed to have been considered while rendering the judgment. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Order XI CPC. The interrogatories cannot be in the nature of a fishing or roving inquiry, nor can they seek information that can be elicited during cross-examination. The provision is intended to facilitate adjudication and not to enable a party to avoid proving facts that the law requires it to establish independently. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When a registered sale deed or property allotment is cancelled by a statutory body as a direct consequence of implementing a binding judicial order that has attained finality, such an action does not constitute an independent, ‘unilateral’ administrative cancellation. Limitation Act has no application for such cancellation. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Contempt of Court. A petition alleging criminal contempt cannot be summarily rejected merely for want of the Advocate General’s consent. Such a petition may be treated as information under the Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules and placed before the Chief Justice for consideration as to whether cognizance of the alleged contempt should be taken. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 356

  • 24-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal