In this writ appeal, the High Court of Karnataka addressed the maintainability of an appeal against a single judge's order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Citing Tammanna and Ors., the court held such appeals are not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT APPEAL NO.203/2021 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN
SRI RAKESH RAJORA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O SRI SHYAM SINGH RAJORA, R/AT NO. VILLA NO.46, CHESTNUT BLOCK, PRESTIGE OZONE HAGADUR VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.MEENA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MS. PRITI R AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, D/O MR DAMODAR NAWKA, R/AT FLAT NO.302A, RJ GARDEN, 17 E CROSS, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 17/12/2020 IN W.P.NO.19491/2016 AND ETC.
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19491/2016 in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (Ms.Priti R. v. Mr.Rakesh Rajora).
3
maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. Office objection is upheld.
No order as to costs.
SD/JUDGE
SD/JUDGE
TL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal filed against the single judge's order under Article 227 and Section 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.
Whether an intra-court appeal is maintainable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 against an order passed by the single judge exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tammanna and Ors. Vs Miss Renuka and Ors.Applied¶3
Tammanna and Ors. Vs Miss Renuka and Ors., ILR 2009 Kar 1207 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Rakesh Rajora
Ms. Priti R
Satish Chandra Sharma
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
