Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
Meera Patankar, Wife Of Late Uddhav D. Patankar – Appellant
Versus
Pavithra Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Represented By Its Managing Director Mr. S. Venkataraman – Respondent
ORDER :
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
This Review Petition has been filed seeking for review of the order dated 14.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.3012/2023. The Review Petitioner has sought for revival and restoration of the writ proceedings and for re-hearing of the petition on merits.
2. This court in W.P.No.3012/2023, in a writ petition filed seeking for calling for records in O.S.No.4217/2020 and for directing the Trial Court to consider the applications of the petitioner in I.A.No.1/2020 and I.A.No.2/2020 filed seeking interim injunction, disposed of the writ petition in terms of the following:
"After hearing the matter for sometime, submission is made on behalf of the petitioners that if the developers were to undertake not to encumber the owners' share for development of the property, the grievance would be redressed for the present.
2. Learned Counsel Sri Abhinav Ramanand appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the owners' share would be kept intact for the present.
3. In light of the same and in light of the stand of the petitioners, question of passing any order as regards disposal of I.A.No.1/2020 and 2/2020 does not arise.
Liberty is however reserved to the petitioners, in the event,
Concessions made by counsel without client authority can jeopardize client rights, and such concessions may be grounds for reviewing court orders.
The High Court emphasized the need for substantial justice over procedural technicalities, affirming that delay in producing documents should not bar justice if they are essential for adjudication.
The importance of providing a sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the interpretation of the authority of a representative to enter into a compromise.
The court upheld the arbitral award, finding no unreasonable delay or jurisdictional errors, affirming the arbitrator's findings were based on evidence, as claims were not barred by limitation.
The court emphasized the need for a careful balance of equities in injunction cases, asserting that blanket injunctions affecting substantial projects must be substantiated with clear justifications.
Joint family properties must be protected in partition suits, ensuring the rights of co-sharers against potential losses during ongoing legal disputes.
Non-appearance during an appeal hearing should be adequately justified to warrant a review based on Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
Point of Law : Court find ourselves unable to agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the review petitioner and Court do not find any error, much less an error apparent on the face of ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent corporation has the authority to suspend development permission and must provide both parties with an opportunity to present th....
The need for valid reasons for delay in condonation petitions and the lack of bona fides in explanations for delay influenced the court's decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
