Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing B. Ganganna vs Returning Officer, M.A. Venkataswamy ... on 15 April, 1981

Chitrasen Sinku vs Bijay Singh Soy And Ors. on 26 November, 1998

Same principle was laid down in the case of B. Ganganna v. Returning Officer. AIR 1982 Kant 156. However, in that case, Karnataka High Court refused to invoke the provision of Section 151 of the Code on the ground that there was specific provision under Rule 9 Order IX of the Code and that provision not having been resorted to, the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code was not permissible.
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - G S Chaube - Full Document

Sha Vindichand Hastimal And Co. vs Central Bank Of India on 19 October, 1994

3. The respondent - Bank has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,72,241/-. When the suit was posted for evidence, the respondent remained absent and therefore the suit came to be dismissed for default. On that very day, a representative of the respondent-Bank appeared before the Court and filed an application under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit. The trial Court has allowed that application. The only grievance of the petitioners is that there is a specific provision in CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit for default and the respondent instead of resorting to that specific provision of law, has filed an application under Section 151 CPC invoking the inherent powers of the Court to set aside that order. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on a Decision in the case of B. GANGANNA v. RETURNING OFFICER AND ORS. ILR (Karnataka) 1981(2) 1543, wherein this Court has held that if a suit is dismissed for default or non-prosecution, the aggrieved party may apply for setting aside of order of dismissal under Order 9 Rule 9 and that when there is a specific provision, the plaintiff cannot invoke the inherent powers of the Court. The question is whether this Court should exercise its revisional powers under Section 115 CPC to set aside such an order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Veerabhadrappa S/O Siddappa Kallyal vs Manjunatha S/O Basavaraj Kundagol on 30 August, 2013

In the case of M/S. SHA VINDICHAND HASTIMAL AND COMPANY AND OTHERS Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, K.R. CIRCLE, MYSORE, 1995 (1) Kar.L.J.191, the respondent - Bank has instituted a suit for recovery of certain sum and on the date the suit was posted for evidence, remained absent and the suit was 4 dismissed for default and on the very day, an application under S.151 CPC was filed to set aside the order of dismissal and the application having been allowed by the trial court, by placing reliance on the decision in the case of B. GANGANNA (supra), a civil revision petition was filed by the defendant. Considering the rival contentions, it was held as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A N Gowda - Full Document
1