Review petition against an order in a writ petition concerning an electricity dispute was dismissed as not maintainable because it was filed by counsel who had not appeared for the petitioner in the original proceedings, contrary to settled law.
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: 2024:KHC:47875 RP No. 501 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 501 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
ALPINE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE NO.10, LANGFORD ROAD, BANGALORE-560025. [REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR]
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed byVISHAL VISHAL NINGAPPA NINGAPPA PATTIHAL PATTIHAL Date: 2024.12.12 10:00:54 +0530
NC: 2024:KHC:47875 RP No. 501 of 2024
ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
… RESPONDENTS
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS FILED REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114, ORDER 47, RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 READ WITH ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 1ST OCTOBER 2024 PASSED IN WP NO.14850/2016 (GM-KEB) PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 1ST OCTOBER 2024 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.14850/2016 (GMKEB) B. CLARIFY THAT THE PETITIONER IS AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH FORUMS IN ADDITION TO OR OTHER THAN CGRF FOR REDRESSAL OF ITS GRIEVANCE C. MAKE ABSOLUTE, THE STAY AGAINST DISCONNECTION, IN THE VIEW OF DEPOSIT OF THE 50 PERCENT OF THE DISPUTED AMOUNT BY THE PETITIONER. D. PASS SUCH FURTHER ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
NC: 2024:KHC:47875 RP No. 501 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
The Review petitioner is one Alpine Housing Development Corporation Limited, who was the petitioner in WP No.14850/2016 and was represented by one counsel Sri.Abhinav R.
Prabhu, learned counsel representing the petitioner- Alpine Housing Development Corporation Limited, who is not the counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No.14850/2016. The Apex Court has heavily come upon such type of practice in the case of Tamilnadu Electricity Board and another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and another.1 It is settled proposition of law that the counsel who appeared for the parties would be authorized to appear and argue the matter in review petition.
1 (1997)9 SCC 736
NC: 2024:KHC:47875 RP No. 501 of 2024
stands dismissed as not maintainable .
SD/-
(JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA)
PJ/ CT:PA LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review petition filed by counsel who did not appear for the party in the original writ petition is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tamilnadu Electricity Board and another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and anotherRelied on¶2
(1997)9 SCC 736 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Alpine Housing Development Corporation Limited
The Bangalore Electricity Company Limited (BESCOM)
The Chief Engineer (Electricity)
The Assistant Executive Engineer (El) BESCOM
K.S. Hemalekha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
