• 

  Simultaneous prosecution under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is not inherently barred as an inflexible rule; where a complaint involves distinct acts or transactions that independently establish initial fraudulent inducement as well as subsequent dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property, the accused can be tried for both offences. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 1379

  • 09-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Limitation Act. Where a special statute/rule explicitly prescribes a strict timeframe to challenge a compensation award, courts cannot routinely or mechanically condone enormous delays without daily or reasonable explanation showing absolute bona fides and due diligence by the claimant. Karnataka High Court.

  • 09-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Deletion of an existing entry without notice violates the statutory requirement and principles of natural justice. Issuance of written notice to persons whose names appear in the Record of Rights or Register of Mutations, as well as other persons known to be interested, is mandatory before effecting mutation. Karnataka High Court.

  • 08-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Representation of the People Act. Presentation of an election petition by the petitioner in person is a mandatory requirement under Section 81. Non-compliance with such a requirement renders the election petition liable to dismissal at the threshold under Section 86 (1). Supreme Court.

  • 08-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  There is no right to receive foreign contribution since it is a privilege. Organisations engaged in converting people of one religious faith to another shall be denied FCRA registration. Madras High Court.

  • 08-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Order XLI Rule 31 CPC is mandatory. A First Appellate Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 96 CPC must consider both questions of fact and questions of law and cannot simply deal with one aspect of the dispute. The appellate judgment must state: points for determination; decision on those points; reasons for the decision; and the relief granted when the Trial Court's decree is reversed or varied. Karnataka High Court

  • 07-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Daily-wage skilled workers who had been treated as permanent employees for pay and pensionary purposes could not be denied the post-retirement increment solely because they were originally classified as daily wagers. Supreme Court.

  • 07-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Service Law. Courts exercising judicial review cannot alter or enlarge prescribed essential qualifications. Determination of equivalence of qualifications falls within the domain of the employer or competent expert authority. Where the Rules specifically prescribe qualification under the ‘10+2 system of education’, candidates possessing National Institute of Open Schooling qualifications cannot be treated as eligible contrary to such prescription. Supreme Court.

  • 07-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Service Law. Recruitment qualification must be interpreted according to its actual wording; an ambiguous condition cannot automatically be construed against candidates. Where the recruitment qualification is ambiguous or vague, the benefit of that ambiguity should ordinarily go to the candidate rather than being used as a ground for rejection. Karnataka High Court.

  • 07-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The power to interpret a contract does not permit an arbitrator to rewrite or neutralise an express contractual term. Where a contract expressly excludes compensation for overheads and profits arising from delay, such compensation cannot ordinarily be awarded contrary to that exclusion. Karnataka High Court.

  • 07-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal has no inherent or statutory power to review, set aside, or reconsider its own final orders even if invoked under the guise of ‘public interest’ or on an application by a third party. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is strictly limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes or rectifying the extent of land upon actual measurement after hearing the parties. Karnataka High Court.

  • 07-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  SARFAESI Act – Priority of Security Interest and Statutory Remedy. Where competing rights over the same immovable property are created at different points of time, the earlier mortgage or security interest prevails over a subsequently created charge under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act. The overriding provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act operate only to the extent of inconsistency and do not, by themselves, extinguish pre-existing rights or interests. Karnataka High Court.

  • 06-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal