Interference with Trial Court Order in Jurisdiction under Article 227

The appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 12.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in W.P.Nos.201087-88/2018 c/w W.P.

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/remand-of-writ-petition-for-restoration-and-decision-on-merits/

He executed a General Power of Attorney dated 21.10.1982 in favour of one Kotermreddy Kodandarami Reddy authorising him to do all the acts necessary with regard to the execution of the said contract.

Thereafter, an application came to be made by Sri Kotemreddy Kodandarami Reddy for restoration of 3 the Arbitration Application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Sections 151 read with Section 146 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the learned Single Judge of the High Court while allowing the writ petition(s) has only considered the provision of Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, but has ignored the provision of Sections 202 and 209 of the said Act. In so far as the assignment deed is concerned, she submits that since there was no consent of the State for the said assignment deed, the same was not valid in law.

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/presumption-of-genuine-endorsements-in-cheque-case/

She further submits that the rights in the contract could not have been transferred by way of an assignment deed.

We find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge was not in consonance with of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, which read thus: “202.

In a jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge could not have interfered with the order of the trial Court, unless he found the view taken by the learned trial Judge was perverse or impossible.

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/medical-negligence-and-compensation-a-landmark-decision/

almost a period of more than 30 years, we expedite the proceedings before the Trial Judge and direct the same to be disposed of within a period of six months from today.

Case Title: P. SESHAREDDY (D) REP. BY HIS LR CUM IRREVOCABLE GPA HOLDER AND ASSIGNEE KOTAMREDDY KODANDARAMI REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2022 INSC 1191)

Case Number: C.A. No.-008252-008254 / 2022

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *