“It is more so when remedy provided under S. 70 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 happens to be alternate and more efficacious one”.
To interpret ‘proceeding decided’ as entire proceedings and not a part of a proceeding would amount to restricting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction which is not as contemplated under Section 210 of UP Revenue Code.
Allahabad High Court said that the cases relied upon by the accused are not applicable to the present case, as they are silent over the issue of maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after insertion of Section 14-A of SC/ST Act, 1989 and unless the said issue is decided consciously, any departure from the statutory provision would be a bad precedent.
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the order where the Madras High Court had after giving detailed findings on merits, relegated to
Karnataka High Court: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J. allowed this writ petition which was preferred to set aside the order of the
Patna High Court: The Bench of Shivaji Pandey, J. dismissed a writ petition filed by an employer, challenging the amount of compensation
Karnataka High Court: The Single Judge Bench of S. Sujatha, J. dismissed a petition challenging the decision of Returning Officer of Kadaragundi
Patna High Court: A Single judge bench comprising of Birendra Kumar, J. while hearing a civil writ petition against an Arbitrator’s order