Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V SRISHANANDA
SRI ASHRAF A. R. BUHARI – Appellant
Versus
SMT RAJAMMA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the property dispute. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and procedural issues. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 22 , 23 , 25) |
| 3. court's analysis on jurisdiction and bifr proceedings. (Para 20 , 21 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33) |
| 4. legal reasoning on jurisdictional limitations and rejection of plaint. (Para 35 , 37 , 39) |
| 5. conclusion of the court upholding the revision petition. (Para 40) |
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri Amit Mandgi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G.K.Shivaprakash, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. This revision petition is filed by the defendant No.2 challenging the validity of the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in O.S No.594/2012 on the file of XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-8) whereby I.A. No.3 filed by the second defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be dismissed by Order dated 30.04.2014.
3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 viz. C.N.Geetha and C.N. Shashishekar, being the daughter and son of Smt. Rajamma/ respondent No.1 together
The Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to hear matters involving sick industries under SICA, necessitating the dismissal of suits pending before it upon the filing of proceedings with BIFR, per Sections ....
The question of limitation in a suit involving a sick industrial company is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring a full trial to resolve.
Civil courts' jurisdiction is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act in matters that can be determined by Debt Recovery Tribunals.
Application against measures to recover secured debts – Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of Civil Court is not ousted. However, Civil Courts have to be extremely cautious while granting any interim order ....
The Courts at Patiala did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent as the suit property/res is situated in Gurugram. The agreement in question is a forged and fabricated document....
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
