Karthik Residency v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2025RP/100084/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad bench; RP No.100084 of 2025; NC: 2025:KHC-D:12124; decided 12.09.2025 by Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur. Review under S.114 r/w Order XLVII Rule (1) CPC of writ order dated 17.7.2025 in W.P. No.103932/2025 (Excise) concerning renewal of CL-7 licence of Karthik Residency Registered Partnership Firm (Sandur, Bellary). Error apparent on face of record; deletion of paragraph-(iii) regarding respondent No.5 Shilpa Patil's status in the partnership; HCGP raised no objection; review petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; paragraph-(iii) of the operative portion of the order dated 17.7.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.103932 of 2025 ordered to be deleted. ¶¶49

Karthik Residency Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12124 RP No. 100084 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

REVIEW PETITION NO.100084 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARTHIK RESIDENCY REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, CL-7 LICENSEE, NO. 223(A),SY.NO. 326, ASSESSMENT NO.27, SUNDUR TOWN - 583 119 BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ITS PARTNER PRAHLLAD S/O KRISHNAPPA D AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT. SANDUR, BELLARY DISTRICT- 583119

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI.G.K.BHAT. SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.SUDHA D, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560 001 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA 2^ND FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶13

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12124 RP No. 100084 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY 583 101

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE BELLARY DISTRICT BELLARY 583 101

¶18

SHILPA PATIL W/O LATE D RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO. 68, 2^ND WARD NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPLE, SANDUR- 583 119, BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN YELLAREDDY ,HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4; NOTICE TO R-5 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 11.08.2025)

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE (1) OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.103932/2025 (EXCISE).

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶25

Heard learned senior counsel - Sri G.K. Bhat on

¶26

behalf of learned counsel - Smt. Sudha D for petitioner as

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12124 RP No. 100084 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

well as learned High Court Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶31

The present Review Petition is filed to review the order dated 17.7.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.103932 of 2025 (Excise).

¶32

Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner

¶33

brings to the notice of this Court paragraph - (iii) of the operative portion of the order dated 17.7.2025, which

¶34

reads as under:

¶35

"(iii) The petitioner is permitted to produce all such documents to show that the respondent no.5 is no more in the partnership and that her presence may not be required for the renewal"

¶36

It is the contention of learned senior counsel that

¶37

the said observation at paragraph-(iii) of the operative portion of the order is contrary to the material available on record and thus there is an error on the face of the record. Therefore, he seeks for deletion of the said paragraph - (iii) in the operative portion of the order.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12124 RP No. 100084 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Learned HCGP has no objection for reviewing the order by deleting paragraph - (iii) of operative portion of the order dated 17.7.2025.

¶42

It is not in dispute that petitioner and Respondent No.5 are partners in the registered partnership firm and learned HCGP has filed necessary documents to show that the petitioner and Respondent No.5 have approached the concerned authorities for renewal of licence and the same has been granted. Under the circumstances, I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for petitioner that there is an error on the face of the record and observation made in paragraph-3 of operative portion of the order is contrary to the material available on record and the contentions so raised.

¶43

In view of the above, paragraph-(iii) of operative portion of the order dated 17.7.2025 in Writ Petition No.103932 of 2025 requires to be struck off and the same is liable to be deleted by reviewing the order.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12124 RP No. 100084 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47