Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

M/S Shree Electronics Vs M/S Bpl Limited — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
M/S Shree Electronics Vs M/S Bpl LimitedM/S Shree Electronics v. M/S Bpl Limited

Disposed¶42

M/S Shree Electronics v. M/S Bpl Limited

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2026RP/446/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Division Bench (Anu Sivaraman J. & Tara Vitasta Ganju J.), decision dated 17-03-2026. Shree Electronics (partnership firm) and partners vs BPL Limited. Review Petition RP No.446 of 2024 under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC to review judgment dated 22/02/2024 in RFA No.2257/2023 (rejection of counter claim application in O.S.No.10381/1995, XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore). Review petition CLOSED, not decided on merits: suit already decreed on 18.12.2023; contentions left open to be agitated in pending RFA No.836/2024; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. No case law cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

None; review petition closed leaving the review petitioners' contentions open to be agitated in pending RFA No.836/2024; no order as to costs; all pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

Why is it important?

Since the suit itself has been decreed and an appeal (RFA No.836/2024) is pending against the said judgment and decree, the review petition is closed, leaving open the contentions of the review petitioners (including those on rejection of the counter claim) to be agitated in the pending RFA No.836/2024. ¶42

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; review petition closed leaving the review petitioners' contentions open to be agitated in pending RFA No.836/2024; no order as to costs; all pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the review petition against the judgment dated 22/02/2024 in RFA No.2257/2023 should be entertained when the underlying suit O.S.No.10381/1995 has already been decreed (decree dated 18.12.2023) and RFA No.836/2024 is pending against the said judgment and decree.

Court's answer

Since the suit itself has been decreed and an appeal (RFA No.836/2024) is pending against the said judgment and decree, the review petition is closed, leaving open the contentions of the review petitioners (including those on rejection of the counter claim) to be agitated in the pending RFA No.836/2024.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition No.446 of 2024 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by M/s Shree Electronics and its partners to review the judgment dated 22/02/2024 in RFA No.2257/2023, which arose from an appeal against an order passed on an application for rejection of a counter claim filed in O.S.No.10381/1995 by the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. On hearing, it emerged that the suit itself had been proceeded with and had ended in a decree dated 18.12.2023, and that a First Appeal as RFA No.836/2024 was pending against the said judgment and decree, wherein the contentions regarding rejection of the counter claim could be agitated. Holding (per Anu Sivaraman J., for the Division Bench comprising Tara Vitasta Ganju J.): in view of the suit having been decreed and the appeal being pending, the review petition was closed, expressly leaving open the review petitioners' contentions to be agitated in the pending RFA No.836/2024; there was no order as to costs, and all pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15683-DB RP No. 446 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

REVIEW PETITION NO.446 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

M/S SHREE ELECTRONICS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SMT. PUSHPA SINGH, NO.14, HAZRAT GUNJ, OPP. HALWASIA MARKET, LUCKNOW – 226 001 UTTAR PRADESH.

SMT. PUSHPA SINGH W/O KAUSHLENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, PARTNER OF SHREE ELECTRONICS, FLAT NO.129, NEAR PETROL PUMP,

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA

RAVINDRA PALLI, FAIZABAD ROAD, LUCKNOW – 226 001.

SRI. AMIT KUMAR SINGH S/O KAUSHLENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PARTNER OF SHREE ELECTRONICS, FLAT NO.129, NEAR PETROL, PUMP, RAVINDRA PALLI,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15683-DB RP No. 446 of 2024

HC-KAR

FAIZABAD ROAD, LUCKNOW – 226 001.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VIJAY A M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S BPL LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BPL WORKS, PALAKKAD – 676 007 KERALA & ITS OFFICE AT NO.13, BPL TOWERS, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY)

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. KASHYAP N NAIK., ADVOCATE)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII

RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/02/2024 PASSED IN RFA NO.2257/2023 AND ALLOW

THE SAID APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.,

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION

THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15683-DB RP No. 446 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Though arguments were made by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the review petition arises out of a judgment in an appeal against an order passed on an application for rejection of a counter claim filed in O.S.No.10381/1995 by the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. It is contended that the suit was proceeded with and has ended in a decree dated 18.12.2023 and that a First Appeal as RFA No.836/2024 is pending as against the said judgment and decree. It is submitted that the contentions raised herein, with regard to the rejection of the counter claim can be agitated in the said Regular First Appeal.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15683-DB RP No. 446 of 2024

HC-KAR

3. Having considered the contentions advanced

and in view of the fact that the suit itself has been decreed and an appeal is pending against the said judgment and decree, this review petition is closed , leaving open the contentions of the review petitioners to be agitated in the pending RFA No.836/2024. There will be no order as to costs.

All pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of.

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN)

JUDGE

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

YKL List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the review petition against the judgment dated 22/02/2024 in RFA No.2257/2023 should be entertained when the underlying suit O.S.No.10381/1995 has already been decreed (decree dated 18.12.2023) and RFA No.836/2024 is pending against the said judgment and decree.medium confidence¶42
The court held
Since the suit itself has been decreed and an appeal (RFA No.836/2024) is pending against the said judgment and decree, the review petition is closed, leaving open the contentions of the review petitioners (including those on rejection of the counter claim) to be agitated in the pending RFA No.836/2024.ratio¶42

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order XLVII Rule 1¶28 Section 114¶28

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 22/02/2024 passed in RFA No.2257/2023 (appeal against an order on an application for rejection of a counter claim in O.S.No.10381/1995), sought to be reviewed.¶28
High Court of Karnataka · 2024-02-22
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.10381/1995 before the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City; the review petition arises out of a judgment in an appeal against an order passed on an application for rejection of a counter claim filed in that suit.¶38
Prior proceeding
The suit itself was proceeded with and ended in a decree dated 18.12.2023; a First Appeal as RFA No.836/2024 is pending against the said judgment and decree.¶38

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
M/S SHREE ELECTRONICS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SMT. PUSHPA SINGH¶12
Sri. Vijay A M.
petitioner
SMT. PUSHPA SINGH W/O KAUSHLENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, PARTNER OF SHREE ELECTRONICS¶13
Sri. Vijay A M.
petitioner
SRI. AMIT KUMAR SINGH S/O KAUSHLENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PARTNER OF SHREE ELECTRONICS¶16
Sri. Vijay A M.
respondent
M/S BPL LIMITED¶24
Sri. Kashyap N Naik.

Coram

AI extract

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaramanauthor¶36
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganjumember¶32

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 17 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 28 Sept 2024
Case no.: RP/446/2024
CNR: KAHC010522942024
Bench: Anu Sivaraman Tara Vitasta Ganju
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: Review Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Anu Sivaraman Tara Vitasta Ganju

Sri. Shafeeq Ahamed Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc
16 Mar 2026
M/S Hindusthan Steel Works Construction Limited Vs Union of India
16 Mar 2026
Smt Hemavathi Vs the Joint Commissioner
16 Mar 2026
The State of Karnataka Vs Karakushala Kaigarika Sahakara Sangh Ltd.
17 Mar 2026
Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Vs Sri Shivappa Kuri
17 Mar 2026
J.S. Bharath Vs Smt. M.M Latha @ Dyna
17 Mar 2026

Cite this judgement

M/S Shree Electronics v. M/S Bpl Limited, RP/446/2024 (KA), decided on 17 March 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order XLVII Rule 1 · Section 114

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Judgment dated 22/02/2024 passed in RFA No.2257/2023 (appeal against an order on an application for rejection of a counter claim in O.S.No.10381/1995), sought to be reviewed.High Court of Karnataka · 2024-02-22
Suit O.S.No.10381/1995 before the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City; the review petition arises out of a judgment in an appeal against an order passed on an application for rejection of a counter claim filed in that suit.
The suit itself was proceeded with and ended in a decree dated 18.12.2023; a First Appeal as RFA No.836/2024 is pending against the said judgment and decree.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju

Parties & counsel