H.V. Venkatesh vs Election Officer 2835 on 26 August, 1994
4. Admittedly the aforesaid Decision was rendered following the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court pronounced in M.M. YARAGATTI v. VASANT .
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.33 seconds)Documents citing
M.M. Yaragatti vs Vasant And Ors. on 10 April, 1987
Mr Gangadhar Nayak vs Mr Ananth G Pai on 21 July, 2023
The Apex Court considered the case of M
M YARAGATTI and the same was overruled and affirmed
KRISHNAJI VENKATESH SHIRODKAR's case and also
distinguished VISHESH KUMAR and AUNDAL AMMAL's case
which has been relied upon by this Court and hence, the
judgment quoted by the respondent in YARAGATTI's case
cannot be relied upon in view of the overruling of the same. The
counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Orissa High Court
13
but when the Apex Court held that second revision is
maintainable, the principles laid down in the Orissa High Court
also cannot be relied upon.
Gururaj Gurunath Govind Rao Mutalik ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 1994
However, in a subsequent decision rendered by a Full Bench in M.M. Yaragatti v. Vasant that view was upset and the Supreme Court considered the correctness of that view and the view expressed in Shyamaraju Hegde's case. It was noticed therein that having regard to the Legislative history that the right of appeal has been completely taken away and the entire proceedings are sought to be limited to a two tier system viz., the Rent Control court and the Revisional Court whereas under the Kerala Act there is a three tier system viz., the Rent Control Court, the Appellate Court and the Revisional Court. A further revision to the High Court would not lie under the Kerala Act, while under the Karnataka Act it would lie and though the language of the Karnataka Act is to the effect that the order made there shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question before any authority or in a proceeding in any suit or other proceedings. The Supreme Court reckoned the same at a lesser decree than the terms under the Kerala Act because the word 'finality' in the two enactments under the relevant provisions present distinctly different perspectives. Therefore, one cannot say with any definiteness or lay down any general principle as to whether the expression 'final' in regard to an order made by an authority would not leave open the door to revision. Hence, we are of the view that the matter should be examined not merely on the language of a particular provision, but also bearing in mind the entire scheme of the Act and, if necessary the legislative history thereto.
Nanje Gowda vs Channe Gowda on 8 July, 1991
6. It is only by virtue of the Full Bench Decision of this Court in KRISHNAJI VENKATESH SHIRODKAR v. GURUPAD SHIVRAM KAVALEKAR AND ORS., ILR (Karnataka) 1978 (2) 1585 which is affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of SHYAMARAJU HEGDE v. VENKATESHA BHAT, ILR 1987 KAR 3244 by setting aside the Full Bench Decision of this Court in M.M. YARAGATTI v. VASANT, that Second Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 CPC against the first revisional order of the District Judge are entertained. Therefore, the first argument of Sri Chandrasekharaiah that Section 29(1) of the Act is not applicable to the Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 CPC for the reason that Section 115 CPC is not mentioned in Section 29(1) of the Act, cannot be regarded as a sound argument.
1