The Managing Director Ksrtc vs Smt Kamalesh Kumari
2022 Latest Caselaw 3354 Kant

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                           PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                            AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

           REVIEW PETITION NO.306 OF 2021
                    IN MFA NO.162/2021



BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC, CENTRAL DIVISION,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560027.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RADHA B.P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT. KAMALESH KUMARI
       W/O RAKESH KUMAR
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

2.     MS. KAJAL
       D/O LATE RAKESH KUMAR
       AGED 23 YEARS,

3.     KUM. KOMAL
       D/O LATE RAKESH KUMAR
       AGED 17 YEARS,

4.     KUM. KASHIK
       D/O LATE RAKESH KUMAR
       AGED 14 YEARS,
                             2



     RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE MINORS
     REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
     MOTHER i.e., RESPONDENT NO.1

     ALL ARE R/AT WARD NO.4
     ALAMPUR, NO.472,
     ALAMPUR KANGRA,
     SINGUPUR,
     HIMACHAL PRADESH-176082.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
                           ---
     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W
ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER
DATED 23.07.2021 PASSED IN MFA NO.162/2021 AND PASS
APPROPRIATE ORDER THERE ON.

      THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Mrs. Radha B.P., learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This petition has been filed seeking review of

the Judgment dated 23.07.2021 passed by this Court in

MFA.No.162/2021.

3. After hearing the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and in the considered opinion of this

Court, Judgment does not suffer from any judicial

Jurisdictional error nor any error apparent on the face of

the record warranting interference of this Court in

exercising power in review petition.

In the result, review petition fails and hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE HR