This court rejected a review petition filed by the State against an order allowing a writ petition partially and quashing a communication, holding that the grievances raised did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record and amounted to rehearing.
Petition stood rejected with no further orders in the matter.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:27702 RP No. 104 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 104 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.21308/2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB, ADDL. ADV. GENERAL FOR P1;
Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR P2-P3)
AND:
M/S. BBP STUDIO VIRTUAL BHARATH PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, STUDIO VIRTUAL BHARAT, 101/102 POOJA, 7TH ROAD, GOLIBAR, SANTA CRUZ EAST, MUMBAI-400055.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SWAROOP SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 25/01/2023 PASSED IN W.P. NO. 21308/2022 (GM-RES), BY THIS HONBLE COURT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.
NC: 2023:KHC:27702 RP No. 104 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT DHARWAD BENCH, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The State and its wings are before this Court seeking review of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.21308/2022 disposed on 25.01.2023.
Sri.Reuben Jacob appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
“ ORDER
on the score that the quality assessment of the film has not been directed to be done, while disposing the petition and a direction is issued to pay the entire contract price to the petitioner in whose favour the contract was awarded. Several other grounds are urged in the review petition. The order at paragraphs 14/15 bears consideration of what the learned Additional Advocate General is now wanting to submit.
NC: 2023:KHC:27702 RP No. 104 of 2023
“ Summary of the principles
20 . Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute.
20.1 . When the review will be maintainable:
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
NC: 2023:KHC:27702 RP No. 104 of 2023
NC: 2023:KHC:27702 RP No. 104 of 2023
quoted guidelines as to when the review would be maintainable and when it would not.
Sd/JUDGE
kmv
Ct:Bck
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC regarding the disposal of the writ petition should be accepted for reconsideration.
Whether the grounds urged for review constitute an error apparent on the face of the record or a repetition of old arguments.
Whether entertaining the review submissions would amount to rehearing the matter as an appellate court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and othersApplied¶34
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others (2013) 8 SCC 320 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka
Invest Karnataka Forum
Marketing Communication & Advertising Ltd.
M/s. BBP Studio Virtual Bharath Pvt. Ltd.
M. Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
