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 - 10 of 16 (0.95 seconds)Documents citing
M.M. Yaragatti vs Vasant And Ors. on 10 April, 1987
K.S.E.B. vs Cheriyan Varghese And Ors. on 10 February, 1989
32. Under the Karnataka Act as amended, from the orders of District Munsiffs, instead of an appeal to the District Judge and then a
revision to the High Court, only a right of revision to the District Court is provided. In respect of cases disposed of by the civil judges in the city of Bangalore, a revision is provided ; to the High Court. Notwithstanding the changes effected in the right of appeal and revision, Section 48(6) of the Act provided that an order of the Court or the Controller shall, subject to the decision of the District Judge or the High Court under Section 50, be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law whether in a suit or other proceeding or by way of appeal or revision. It was in construing this provision that the Full Bench decision referred lo above held that a revision to the High Court under Section 115 is maintainable. The correctness of this Full Bench decision came up for consideration before a later Full Bench decision of the same High Court in M. M. Yaragatti v. Vasant, AIR 1987 Kant 186.
K.N. Sushama vs Mercy Antony And Ors. on 20 August, 1999
Later, another Full Bench of the same High Court took a contra view in M. M. Yaragattl v. Vasant, AIR 1987 Kant 186.
Geeta Pump (Private) Limited vs District Judge And Ors. on 14 October, 1999
68. The right to purchase and obtain electricity since been governed by special statute and not recognized under the common law, as such general rule contained in Section 9 of the C. P. C. cannot be availed of particularly when exclusive machinery involving technical persons are provided by the consent of parties i.e. in the agreement as well as in the statutory provisions, thereby barring jurisdiction under Section 9 of the C. P. C. impliedly. This was so held in the cases Basti Sahkari Ganna Samiti Ltd. v. Suraj Nath Upadhyay, AIR 1967 All 218, Charan Singh v. The Iqbalpur Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd., AIR 1975 All 111, M/s. K. S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089, State of Rajasthan v. Gopal Lal, 1981 LIC 774 (Rajasthan), M. M. Yaragatti v. Vasant, AIR 1987 Karnataka 186 (FB), Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava (dead) by LRs v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 752 and Jitendra Nath Biswas v. Empire of India and Ceylon Tea Co., AIR 1990 SC 255 : 1990 Lab 1C 308.
Raghavendra Naik And Anr. vs Mahavir And Ors. on 21 May, 2001
In its decision in the case of MM. Yaragatti v. Vasant AIR 1987 Karnataka 186 rendered by a Full Bench and in the case of Gujarat Housing Board v. Nagajibhai Laxmanbhai AIR 1986 Gujarat 81 and in the case of Gopalkrishna Indley v. 5th Addl. District Judge Kanpur AIR 1981 Allahabad 300 rendered by a Full Bench, it had been indicated that the latest judgment of Bench of the Apex Court of the same strength has binding force.
Kalabai Choubey And Ors. vs Rajabahadur Yadav And Anr. on 18 July, 2001
In its decision in the case of MM. Yaragatti v. Vasant AIR 1987 Karnataka 186, rendered by a Full Bench and in the case of Gujarat Housing Board, Ahmedabad v. Nagajibhai Laxmanbhai AIR 1986 Gujarat 81 and in the case of Gopalkrishna Indley v. 5th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur AIR 1981 Allahabad 300, rendered by a Full Bench, it had been indicated that the latest judgment of Bench of the Supreme Court of the same strength has binding force.
S.R. Bose vs S. Gurbax Singh Ors. on 17 February, 1993
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited MM. Yaragatti v. Vasant and Others, , where a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court had held that if there is conflict between decisions of co-equal Benches of the Supreme Court,then the later view should be followed. I am of the view that this is not the correct proposition of law : Once it is clear that a Bench of equal strength cannot over-rule the decision rendered by Bench of same strength then obviously it is the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court which would be binding and not the later judgment particularly when the later judgment has not taken note of the ratio laid down in the previous judgment.
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.