I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha,

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha,"

Transcription

1 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI DATED 18 th JULY, 2011 Petition No. 275 (C) of 2009 Reliance Communications Limited.. Petitioner Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited..... Respondent BEFORE : HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA, CHAIRPERSON HON BLE MR. G.D. GAIHA, MEMBER HON BLE MR. P.K. RASTOGI, MEMBER For Petitioner : Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Santosh Sachin, Advocate for Ms. Manali Singhal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Advocate Mr. Paras Anand, Advocate G.D. Gaiha O R D E R I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha, Chairperson of TDSAT in draft stage. Despite the great respect, 1

2 he commands at my hands, and having every regard for his opinion, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. In my opinion, the Miscellaneous Application No.19/2011 should be allowed. The reasons thereof are mentioned below:- 2. In this case Apex Court in its judgement and order dated has arrived at the following conclusions:- We need to clarify that in this case our judgment is restricted only to the interpretation of Clause of the Interconnect Agreement read with the Addenda. As stated above, we have held that Clause represents pre-estimate of reasonable compensation for the loss suffered by BSNL. Thus, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to TDSAT to decide the matter de novo in accordance with the law laid down hereinabove. However, we need to highlight one aspect. In the letter dated 13 th October, 2004 addressed by BSNL to Reliance, it has been alleged that the calls have landed at the POIs of M/s Reliance Infocomm. Ltd. at Karellbaug, Panigate, Alkapuri, Makarpura, 2

3 Padra, Dabhoi and Miyagam exchanges in Vadodara SSA. The said letter highlights one more important aspect. It is alleged that the number was an unallocated number with Reliance during the relevant period. This aspect needs to be examined by TDSAT on facts. 3. As can be seen from above, the directions are to decide the matter de novo in accordance with the law laid down herein above and the Apex Court has set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the case back to TDSAT. 4. There are two important directions which are to be followed as per the judgement and order and the same are as follows:- (i) (ii) The matter is to be decided de novo. A new law has been laid down which is not within the perceptions of the petitioner herein and the petitioner could not also have any access to this new law even with due diligence prior to the announcement of the judgement on

4 5. The present application of the petitioner has to be decided as per the provisions in Order 6 Rule 17 in case we strictly go as per the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 6 Rule 17 is cited below:- 17. Amendment of Pleadings:- The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendments shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 6. The important part is the proviso, which has to be carefully looked into, for deciding the amendment application in this particular case. The proviso specifically denies to allow any application for amendment only in the following two contingencies:- (i) After the trial has commenced 4

5 (ii) Unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 7. I have tried to examine this case from the point of view of the above two considerations, in case we have to go strictly in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code. It will be in fitness of things that I also bring out the relevant provision in the TRAI Act also at this stage. Alternatively the TRAI Act provides under Section 16 as follows:- 16. Procedure and powers of Appellate Tribunal- (1) The Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. (2) The Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:- 5

6 (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) requisitioning any public record or document or a copy of such record or document, from any office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (f) reviewing its decisions; (g) dismissing an application for default or deciding it, ex-parte; (h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it, ex parte; and (i) any other matter which may be prescribed. (3) Every proceeding before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXV of the code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). 6

7 8. We are, therefore, is strictu sensu not bound by the Civil Procedure Code and the principles of natural justice can be the guiding factor in regard to deciding any such case. This Tribunal has, therefore, got inherent power to regulate its own procedures, as per statute and section 16 of the TRAI Act shows us the way. 9. Even if we go strictly by the CPC under the present circumstances while we have otherwise got full liberty, as per the statute to follow our own procedure, we have only to examine the following two important facts:- i) Whether the trial has commenced? (ii) Whether in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 10. In regard to the commencement of trial, the Apex Court in Civil appeal No.7251 of 2008 arising out of the SLP (Civil No.4740 of 2008) has decided that the earliest occasion, to come to a conclusion, that the trial has commenced is the date on which the issues are framed and we can call it as a date of first hearing. In this particular case after the case has been referred for deciding de novo by the Apex Court on 30 th Nov, 2010, the case 7

8 has come up for hearing on 16 th Dec, 2010 and we have passed the following order:- Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that an application for amendment of the petition shall be filed by Mrs. Prathiba Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that if a copy thereof is served in advance, reply thereto may be filed by Put up the matter for hearing on the application on under the heading for order. However, the respondent may also, as has been prayed for, file an additional affidavit. As can be seen from above, we have given liberty to file application for amendment of petition and also directed the hearing to this application on 18 th Jan, We also directed the respondent to file its reply. We have not framed the issues by due application of mind after new law has been laid down by the Apex Court in regard to the most crucial clause of the Interconnect Agreement. 8

9 11. On 18 th Jan, 2011, we have issued notice on the M.A. No. 354 of 2010 directing the respondent to file a reply and thereafter, a rejoinder thereto by the petitioner. Another Miscellaneous Application No.19 of 2011 was filed on 24 th Jan, The earlier application for seeking amendment, being M.A. No. 354 of 2010 was held to have become infructuous and the M.A. No. 19/2011 was heard on 15 th March, This application seeks for amendment of the petition. 12. From the above sequence of events, I cannot persuade myself to infer that:- (i) The trial has commenced after the case was remanded back by the apex Court for a de novo hearing. (ii) As regards the other factor, I am of the opinion that the Apex Court has finally settled the law on the most crucial clause on the basis of which the impugned prayer for amending the petition has been made and, therefore, prior to this date, the fact about the new law on clause could not have been known to the petitioner even with the best of due diligence. 9

10 13. Now coming back to the other important requirements of the Order 6 Rule 17, i.e., that:- (i) The application should state the specific amendments which are sought to be made indicating the words or paragraphs to be added, omitted or substituted in the original proceeding with proper verification as laid down in Order 6 Rule 15. This has been strictly followed by the applicant petitioner. 14. The important requirement that the amendment shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question between the parties can be examined on the basis of comparing the existing averments vis-à-vis the new/additional averments sought to be made after amending the petition. A comparative statement is placed below for the purpose of coming to a conclusion on this issue. The existing averments are typed in the normal letters while the additional averments have been typed in bold letters. Para 12.3 As regards the allegation of deliberate tampering of CLI by the petitioner, it is stated that the statement is factually incorrect since the number indicated 10

11 to the BSNL terminating end is of a subscriber which has been shown as CLI. On what basis the BSNL has alleged deliberate tampering by the petitioner is not explained by the respondent Para 12.3-A: It is submitted that there was no change in CLI by the petitioner while delivering the call. Further it is pertinent to mention that there is no wilful or deliberate change/tampering/masking of CLI by the petitioner as the petitioner has delivered the call with the same CLI as originated from its subscriber. Para 22.5: Without further prejudice, it is stated that the respondent vide the said letter dated have also referred to the clauses (a), (b) & (c) & (d) of the Interconnect Agreement as being related with the issue. It is submitted that this an afterthought of the respondent to cover the illegal action of raising bills without any provision of the Interconnect agreement, because when the said impugned bills were issued on the clause (a), (b), (c) and (d) were not there in the NLD Interconnect Agreement. The only clause was which did not have any sub sections (a) (b) (c) and (d) etc. Without prejudice, it is further submitted that during the period when the bills were raised, the said clause of the NLD Interconnect Agreement was not invoked by the respondent and is added in the letter dated as 11

12 an afterthought. Therefore, referring to this clause in 2007 as justification for raising the impugned bills on is invalid, illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Interconnect Agreement. Para 22.5-A: it is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case Clause of the Interconnect Agreement is not applicable at all as the said clause did not exist during the relevant period ie. July 2004 to October It is pertinent to mention that Clause was inserted in ADDENDA VI signed between the parties on and the same is not applicable with retrospective effect from on account of exception carved out in the ADDENDA VI itself. Para 22.5-B: Without prejudice it is submitted that Clause added in the Interconnect Agreement on cannot make the bills raised in the year 2003 and 2004 legal and valid in law even if the clause is retrospectively applicable from It is pertinent to mention that none of the impugned bills have been raised on the basis of Clause of the Interconnect Agreement. Para 28: Without prejudice to the contention herein above, it is respectfully submitted that the respondent BSNL is 12

13 itself aware of the problem relating to grey market as it also faces the same problem in its own network. This fact has been admitted by the respondent BSNL in question raised in Parliament. Copies of some of the questions answered on behalf of BSNL by the Ministry of Communication are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure P-31. Para 28-A: It is submitted that there has been no benefit to the petitioner in the national or international market in the matter of pricing. In fact the petitioner is a net loser on account of the grey market operations. 15. There are some addition in the grounds and the same are as follows:- C. Because the respondent has not substantiated the allegation of deliberate tampering of CLI by the petitioner. C-(a): Because there was no change in the CLI by the petitioner while delivering the call. C-(b): Because there was no change/tampering/masking of CLI by the petitioner as the petitioner has delivered the call with the same CLI as originated from its subscriber, nor was 13

14 there any wilful or deliberate change/tampering/masking P: Because the said impugned notices are alleged to have been issued for violation of clause (a), (b), (c) & (d) whereas at the relevant time there was no such clause in the NLD Interconnect Agreement. P-(a): Because in the facts and circumstances of the present case Clause of the Interconnect Agreement is not applicable at all. P-(b): Because admittedly Clause did not exist during the relevant period i.e., July 2004 to October P-(c): Because it is submitted that Clause was inserted in ADDENDA VI signed between the parties on and this Clause is not applicable with retrospective effect from on account of exception carved out in the ADDENDA VI itself. P-(d): Because subsequent issue of Clause added in the Interconnect Agreement on cannot make the bills raised in the year 2003 and 2004 legal and valid in law even if the clause retrospectively applicable from

15 P-(e): Because none of the impugned bills have been raised on the basis of Clause of the Interconnect Agreement. 16. In prayers the petitioner has asked for an additional prayer which is as follows:- a-1 Quash and set aside the notice/bill dated 18 th March, As can be seen from the above amendments sought for, the para 22.5-A is only a narration of the facts of the case. Para 22.5-B is only in regard to the bills being raised in case the clause is applicable for raising such a bill. Para 28-A is only a submission in regard to the perception of the petitioner that it has not gained any mileage in the national or international market in the matter of pricing. The addition of the grounds under C and under P are simply from the point of view of making the stand of the petitioner clear and visible. 15

16 18. In my opinion, therefore, the amendments sought for, stand the scrutiny of the requirements of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC upto the hilt. The amendments sought for also do not include any new grounds or new contentions and, therefore, they do not violate the basic intent as contained in the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, These amendments shall, therefore not become the cause for any further delay in deciding this case. 19. The Apex Court had categorically laid down the rule in Tamil Nadu Alloys Foundry Co. Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (2004) 3 SCC page 392 in which it has been held that where a complete new case is made out in (1995) suppl.3 SCC paragraph 17 or where it seeks to take away an admission (2008) 7 SCC 85, the amendment is not allowed. The present case does not fall in these categories also. 20. In another case the Apex Court has put a bar for seeking any amendment in case the claim could be barred by limitation. The instant case also does not fall in this category. 21. In yet another case in Salem Bar Association Vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 4 SCC 344, it has been held:- 16

17 26. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision. 22. In case we go by the principle of natural justice also, any delay which avoids the mis-carriage of justice, is not denied to be incurred by any statutory procedure and; especially from that point of view Section 16 of TRAI Act shows us the way. In the alternate, therefore, this Tribunal is already armed by the statute under Section 16 of the Act to lay down its own procedure and by exercising this power we can also allow this application without 17

18 compromising from any principle laid out in Civil Procedure Code. We should also not get tempted to say that the principle analogous to Civil Procedure Code has been followed because this dilutes the provision made in Section The instant case does not therefore, fall in any one of the citations brought to our notice by learned senior counsel for respondent and therefore, on its own merit, in my opinion the application for amendment may be allowed.... (G.D.Gaiha) Member HKC/ 18

A FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2003 NTN 22) [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]

A FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2003 NTN 22) [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 2003 (Vol. 22) - 330 [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J. Trade Tax Revision No. 677 of 2000 M/s Rotomac Electricals Private Limited, Noida vs. Trade Tax Tribunal and others Date of Decision :

More information

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI. Petition No. 211/MP/2012

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI. Petition No. 211/MP/2012 CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI Petition No. 211/MP/2012 Coram: Dr. Pramod Deo, Chairperson Shri S. Jayaraman, Member Shri V.S. Verma, Member Shri M. Deena Dayalan, Member Date of Hearing:

More information

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3945 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.35786 OF 2016) SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF CLUNY APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No. 131/2013 AND IN THE MATTER OF: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANR. PETITIONER

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.

More information

Case No. 295 of Coram. Anand B. Kulkarni, Chairperson Mukesh Khullar, Member. Adani Power Maharashtra Limited (APML)

Case No. 295 of Coram. Anand B. Kulkarni, Chairperson Mukesh Khullar, Member. Adani Power Maharashtra Limited (APML) Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005 Tel. 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 22163976 Email: mercindia@merc.gov.in Website:

More information

B.S.N.L. Vs. VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED

B.S.N.L. Vs. VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED B.S.N.L. Vs. VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8107 OF 2010 REPORTABLE Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited...Appellant (s) Versus Vodafone

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 7 th January, W.P.(C) 5472/2014, CM Nos /2014, 12873/2015, 16579/2015

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 7 th January, W.P.(C) 5472/2014, CM Nos /2014, 12873/2015, 16579/2015 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 7 th January, 2016 + W.P.(C) 5472/2014, CM Nos. 10868-69/2014, 12873/2015, 16579/2015 ASHFAQUE ANSARI... Petitioner Through: Mr. V. Shekhar,

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR,

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No. 3522/2000 1. Dhansiri Valley Project Oil and Natural Gas Commission

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 320-336 OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 445-461 of 2008) National Small Industries Corp. Ltd....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONDONATION OF DELAY. W.P (C ) No /2006. Judgment reserved on: October 19, 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONDONATION OF DELAY. W.P (C ) No /2006. Judgment reserved on: October 19, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONDONATION OF DELAY W.P (C ) No. 16041/2006 Judgment reserved on: October 19, 2006 Judgment delivered on: November 8, 2006 B. MURALI KRISHNAN.... Petitioner

More information

JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION RANCHI. Case No. 21 & 23 of 2010 ORDER

JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION RANCHI. Case No. 21 & 23 of 2010 ORDER JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION RANCHI Case No. 21 & 23 of 2010 Dated: 6 th October 2010 Shri Mukhtiar Singh, Chairperson Shri T. Munikrishnaiah, Member (Tech) ORDER IN THE MATTER OF

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. CS (OS) No of Versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. CS (OS) No of Versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) No. 2206 of 2012 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali Mittal,

More information

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 788 of 2018

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 788 of 2018 NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI (Arising out of Order dated 10 th October, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, in C.P.

More information

Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. for R-2. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. for R-2. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 CRL.M.C. No. 3426/2011 & Crl.M.A. No. 12164/2011(Stay) Reserved on:6th March, 2012 Decided on: 20th March, 2012 DHEERAJ

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement delivered on: 2 nd December, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015 PRADIP BURMAN Represented by: Versus... Petitioner Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Mr.

More information

KSR & Co Company Secretaries LLP PRACTISING COMPANY SECRETARIES & TRADE MARK AGENTS COIMBATORE & CHENNAI

KSR & Co Company Secretaries LLP PRACTISING COMPANY SECRETARIES & TRADE MARK AGENTS COIMBATORE & CHENNAI KSR & Co Company Secretaries LLP PRACTISING COMPANY SECRETARIES & TRADE MARK AGENTS COIMBATORE & CHENNAI Assuring Assuring Compliances Compliances & Solutions & Solutions Beyond Beyond Challenge Challenge

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Page 1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No. 1961 of 2010 Smt. Padma Rani Mudai Hazarika - Versus - - Petitioner Union of India

More information

Case No. 224 of Coram. Shri. I.M. Bohari, Member Shri. Mukesh Khullar, Member. M/s. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd (VIPL-G)

Case No. 224 of Coram. Shri. I.M. Bohari, Member Shri. Mukesh Khullar, Member. M/s. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd (VIPL-G) Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005 Tel. 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 22163976 Email: mercindia@merc.gov.in Website:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012 DESIGN WORKS Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.... Appellant Versus ICICI BANK LTD... Respondent

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2010 + WP (C) 11932/2009 M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner - versus THE VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER & ANR... Respondent

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11824-11825 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.1274-75 of 2015) REPORTABLE SP SINGLA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. Appellant VERSUS

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development Bank of India ( SIDBI)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development Bank of India ( SIDBI) Review Petition No. 73/2013 (Arising out of Misc. Case No. 705/2013 In FAO 6/2013) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development

More information

THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY

THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY SECTIONS THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Definitions. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CHAPTER II ESTABLISHMENT OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRAI ACT, 1997 WP(C) 617/2013 & CM No.1167/2013 (interim relief) DATE OF ORDER :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRAI ACT, 1997 WP(C) 617/2013 & CM No.1167/2013 (interim relief) DATE OF ORDER : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRAI ACT, 1997 WP(C) 617/2013 & CM No.1167/2013 (interim relief) DATE OF ORDER : 13.03.2013 IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED & ANR....Petitioners Through: Mr. Maninder

More information

RESPONDENTS. Article 14 read with Article 19 (1) G. Article 246 read with entry 77 list 1, 7 th schedule.

RESPONDENTS. Article 14 read with Article 19 (1) G. Article 246 read with entry 77 list 1, 7 th schedule. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION) CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. ------------OF 2010 IN THE MATTER OF : Fatehpal Singh Singh R/o Panchkula PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Union of

More information

Case No. 02 of Shri V. P. Raja, Chairman Shri S. B. Kulkarni, Member Shri V. L. Sonavane, Member

Case No. 02 of Shri V. P. Raja, Chairman Shri S. B. Kulkarni, Member Shri V. L. Sonavane, Member Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No. 1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Email: mercindia@mercindia.org.in Website: www.mercindia.org.in Case

More information

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Nitish Jain & Mr. Jatin Sethi, Advs. Versus

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Nitish Jain & Mr. Jatin Sethi, Advs. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 29th January, 2014 LPA 548/2013, CMs No.11737/2013 (for stay), 11739/2013 & 11740/2013 (both for condonation

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. CS(OS)No.1307/2006. Date of decision:16th January, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. CS(OS)No.1307/2006. Date of decision:16th January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CS(OS)No.1307/2006 Date of decision:16th January, 2009 SMT. TARAN JEET KAUR... Through: Plaintiff Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 17.01.2013 FAO (OS) 298/2010 SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE AND ANR... Appellants Through Mr. H.S.

More information

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 [As amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006 No. 43 of 2006]

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 [As amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006 No. 43 of 2006] The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 [As amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006 No. 43 of 2006] THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, 1993* No. 10 of 1994 (8th January, 1994)

More information

CONTEMPT APPLICATION No. 09 OF Ram Gopal Sharma. Applicant. Versus. Sh Sanjay Mitra IAS (WB:82), Defence Secretary, 101-A, South

CONTEMPT APPLICATION No. 09 OF Ram Gopal Sharma. Applicant. Versus. Sh Sanjay Mitra IAS (WB:82), Defence Secretary, 101-A, South 1 Court No. 1 HON BLE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION No. 09 OF 2018 Ram Gopal Sharma. Applicant Versus Sh Sanjay Mitra IAS (WB:82), Defence Secretary, 101-A, South

More information

OPEN LETTER THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, APPEAL TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS OF THE TELECOM CONSUMERS IN THE COUNTRY AND OR FOR SUO MOTU

OPEN LETTER THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, APPEAL TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS OF THE TELECOM CONSUMERS IN THE COUNTRY AND OR FOR SUO MOTU 1 OPEN LETTER To THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-110002. APPEAL TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS OF THE TELECOM CONSUMERS IN THE COUNTRY AND OR FOR SUO MOTU REVIEW

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (M) No.331/2007 % Date of decision:11 th December, 2009 SMT. SAVITRI DEVI. Petitioner Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus SMT. GAYATRI DEVI & ORS....

More information

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5295 of 2010 WITH SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5296 OF 2010 AND SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5297 OF 2010 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

More information

THE DISPUTED ELECTIONS (PRIME MINISTER AND SPEAKER) ACT, 1977 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

THE DISPUTED ELECTIONS (PRIME MINISTER AND SPEAKER) ACT, 1977 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTIONS THE DISPUTED ELECTIONS (PRIME MINISTER AND SPEAKER) ACT, 1977 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Definitions. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CHAPTER II AUTHORITIES FOR DISPUTED

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO OF 2018] VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO OF 2018] VERSUS REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12023 OF 2018 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO.18598 OF 2018] JAIPUR METALS & ELECTRICALS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION THROUGH

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Negotiable Instruments Act. Judgement reserved on: January 07, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Negotiable Instruments Act. Judgement reserved on: January 07, 2009 (1) Crl.M.C. No. 3011/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Negotiable Instruments Act Judgement reserved on: January 07, 2009 Judgement delivered on: January 13, 2009 (2) Crl.M.C. No.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005 Reserved on: 26-11-2010 Date of pronouncement : 18-01-2011 M/s Sanjay Cold Storage..Petitioner

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +CM Nos.7694-95/2010 (for restoration of CM No.266/2010 and for condonation of delay in applying for the same) in W.P.(C) 4165/2000 % Date of decision: 3 rd June,

More information

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 318 of 2015

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 318 of 2015 1 RESERVED Court No. 2 ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 318 of 2015 Thursday, this the 08 th day of March, 2018 Hon ble Mr. Justice S.V.S.Rathore, Member (J) Hon

More information

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW RESERVE (Court No. 2) Original Application No. 47 of 2014

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW RESERVE (Court No. 2) Original Application No. 47 of 2014 1 ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW RESERVE (Court No. 2) Original Application No. 47 of 2014 Wednesday, this the 23 rd day of November, 2016 Hon ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J) Hon

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 20 th April, versus. Advocates who appeared in this case:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 20 th April, versus. Advocates who appeared in this case: * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 20 th April, 2017 + W.P.(C) 7850/2014 M/S. IRITECH INC versus... Petitioner THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS... Respondents Advocates who appeared

More information

CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10379 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8586 of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS RAZIYA KHANAM (D)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012 SHAMBHU DUTT DOGRA Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate....

More information

Salem Advocate Bar Association,... vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2002

Salem Advocate Bar Association,... vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2002 Supreme Court of India Salem Advocate Bar Association,... vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2002 Bench: B.N. Kirpal Cj, Y.K. Sabharwal, Arijit Passayat CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 496 of 2002 PETITIONER:

More information

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 20th December, 2016

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 20th December, 2016 MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 20th December, 2016 G.S.R. 1159(E). In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2017 M/S LION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS VERSUS O R D E R

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2017 M/S LION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS VERSUS O R D E R 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8984-8985 OF 2017 M/S LION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF M.P. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D

More information

THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY ACT, 1997

THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY ACT, 1997 THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY ACT, 1997 (Act No.22 of 1997) [ Dated 26.3.1997 ] An Act to provide for the establishment of a National Environment Appellate Authority to hear appeals with

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION CM No. 15134 of 2005 in W.P. (C) No. 1043 of 1987 Orders reserved on : 26th July, 2006 Date of Decision : 7th August, 2006 LATE BAWA HARBANS

More information

#1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MR RAJBIR ORS... Defendant Through: Ex Parte

#1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MR RAJBIR ORS... Defendant Through: Ex Parte #1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 222/2016 TATA SONS LIMITED Through:... Plaintiff Ms. Geetanjali Visvanathan with Ms. Asavari Jain, Advocates versus MR RAJBIR JINDAL @ ORS...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, Date of decision: 8th February, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, Date of decision: 8th February, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 Date of decision: 8th February, 2012 WP(C) NO.11374/2006 OCEAN PLASTICS & FIBRES (P) LIMITED

More information

Case No. 17 of Shri. V.P. Raja, Chairman Shri. Vijay L. Sonavane, Member. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Santacruz (E).

Case No. 17 of Shri. V.P. Raja, Chairman Shri. Vijay L. Sonavane, Member. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Santacruz (E). Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13 th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005. Tel. 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 22163976 Email: mercindia@mercindia.org.in

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION) CRP No. 380 of 2014 M/S Shriram Transport Finance

More information

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. versus ABUL KALAM AZAD ISLAMIC AWAKENING CENTRE THROUGH. Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. versus ABUL KALAM AZAD ISLAMIC AWAKENING CENTRE THROUGH. Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) 6392/2007 & CM Appl.12029/2007 Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Decided on: 1st August, 2012 MOHD. ISMAIL Through:... Petitioner Mr.

More information

HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI NOTIFICATION

HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI NOTIFICATION HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI NOTIFICATION No. 451fRuiesIDHC Dated: 25.11.2010 In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1966) and all other powers

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, Reserved on: January 27, Pronounced on: February 22, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, Reserved on: January 27, Pronounced on: February 22, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 Reserved on: January 27, 2012 Pronounced on: February 22, 2012 W.P.(C) No. 2047/2011 & CM No.4371/2011 JAI PAL AND ORS....

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) Judgment reserved on February 05, 2015 Judgment delivered on February 13, 2015 M/S VARUN INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS... Appellants

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on: December 11, 2014

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on: December 11, 2014 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: December 11, 2014 + W.P.(C) 8200/2011 RAJENDER SINGH... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Aggarwal and Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocates.

More information

Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.VI,... Respondents. Delhi and Anr. Through Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate

Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.VI,... Respondents. Delhi and Anr. Through Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Writ Petition (C) No.4397/1999 Reserved on : 13. 03.2007 Date of decision : 03.04.2007 IN THE MATTER OF : Rameshwar Dayal...Petitioner.

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: versus

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: versus THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 20.04.2010 + WP (C) 13338/2009 APOLLO TYRES LTD, KOCHI Petitioner - versus UNION OF INDIA... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:-

More information

The Ministry Of Communications vs Thursday on 1 October, 2010

The Ministry Of Communications vs Thursday on 1 October, 2010 Kerala High Court The Ministry Of Communications vs Thursday on 1 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9182 9188 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.24560 24566 of 2018) (D.No.31403 of 2017) Mysore Urban Development

More information

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RFA 08/2013 1. Manoj Lala, son of Late Mohanlal Lala, R/o. Central Road, Silchar, PO & PS- Silcahr, District-

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment reserved on: 15.03.2011 Judgment delivered on: 18.03.2011 RSA No.243/2006 & CM No.10268/2006 SHRI.D.V. SINGH & ANR...Appellants

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE W.P.(C) 6034/2013 DATE OF DECISION :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE W.P.(C) 6034/2013 DATE OF DECISION : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE W.P.(C) 6034/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16.07.2014 SANDEEP KUMAR... Petitioner Through: Mr. K.G. Sharma, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 2973/2006 Sri Ajit Kumar Kakoti Lecturer, Son of Late Padmadhar Kakoti, Assam Textile

More information

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015 1 RESERVED ORDER A.F.R ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2 OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014 Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015 Hon ble Mr. Justice Virendra Kumar DIXIT, Judicial Member

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1956 W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005 Judgment decided on: 14.02.2011 C.D. SINGH Through: Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : THE ARCHITECTS ACT, 1972 Date of decision: 4th January, 2012 WP(C) NO.8653/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : THE ARCHITECTS ACT, 1972 Date of decision: 4th January, 2012 WP(C) NO.8653/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : THE ARCHITECTS ACT, 1972 Date of decision: 4th January, 2012 WP(C) NO.8653/2008 INSTITUTE OF TOWN PLANNERS, INDIA... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar

More information

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 181 of 2017

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 181 of 2017 1 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Arising out of Order dated 27 th July, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai

More information

THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI. M.A. No. 35 of 2013(SZ) in Appeal No. 31 of 2012

THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI. M.A. No. 35 of 2013(SZ) in Appeal No. 31 of 2012 THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 6 th day of February 2013 M.A. No. 35 of 2013(SZ) in Appeal No. 31 of 2012 Quorum: 1. Hon ble Justice Shri M. Chockalingam (Judicial Member)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3650 OF 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3650 OF 2014 sbw *1* 901.wp3650.14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Coca Cola India Private Limited Versus The Assistant Registrar representing The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

More information

Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Petitioner in person.

Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Petitioner in person. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RESERVED ON: 12.09.2014 PRONOUNCED ON: 12.12.2014 REVIEW PET.188/2014, CM APPL.5366-5369/2014, 14453/2014 IN W.P. (C) 6148/2013

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No of 2015

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No of 2015 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No. 2842 of 2015 Md. Sahid Ali, S/o. Late Akbar Ali, R/o. Village- nmerapani Fareshtablak, P.S.- Merapani,

More information

Case No. 167 of Coram. Smt. Chandra Iyengar, Chairperson Shri. Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri. Deepak Lad, Member

Case No. 167 of Coram. Smt. Chandra Iyengar, Chairperson Shri. Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri. Deepak Lad, Member Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005. Tel. 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 22163976 Email: mercindia@merc.gov.in Website:

More information

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH (DELHI)

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH (DELHI) QUORUM NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH (DELHI) 1. HON BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V RAMULU, JUDICIAL MEMBER 2. HON BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, EXPERT MEMBER MA NO. 1 of 2011 IN Between APPEAL NO. 3

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 509 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 512 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 509 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 512 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 509 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 512 of 2013 MariyamTirkey Petitioner (in WPS No. 506/13) Sudarshan Khakha Petitioner (in

More information

M/S. Iritech Inc vs The Controller Of Patents on 20 April, % Judgment pronounced on: 20th April, 2017

M/S. Iritech Inc vs The Controller Of Patents on 20 April, % Judgment pronounced on: 20th April, 2017 Delhi High Court M/S. Iritech Inc vs The Controller Of Patents on 20 April, 2017 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 20th April, 2017 + W.P.(C) 7850/2014 M/S. IRITECH INC

More information

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd.

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) The Federal Bank Ltd. Petitioner VERSUS Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. Respondents CRP No. 220/2014 The Federal

More information

THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1980

THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1980 THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1980 (ACT NO. VII OF 1981). [5th June, 1981] An Act to provide for the establishment of Administrative Tribunals to exercise jurisdiction in respect of matters relating

More information

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) No. 104 of 2018

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) No. 104 of 2018 NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Komoline Aerospace Ltd. 110-124 Om Tower, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad, 380015. CIN:U29219GJ1991PLC070436 Appellants (Original Respondent

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF A. RAJAGOPALAN ETC...Appellant VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF A. RAJAGOPALAN ETC...Appellant VERSUS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOS.251-256 OF 2015 A. RAJAGOPALAN ETC....Appellant VERSUS THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT & ORS. & ETC....Respondents

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA S/o Sh.Prabhu Dayal Sukhija R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 Date of Judgment: W.P.(C) 8432/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 Date of Judgment: W.P.(C) 8432/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 Date of Judgment:20.3.2013 W.P.(C) 8432/2011 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK... Petitioner Through: Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashim

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No of 2013

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No of 2013 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No. 5343 of 2013 Muncher Ali, S/o. Latee Hussain Ali @ Hussain @ Hussain Miya @ Hussain Ali Miya, Viollage-

More information

THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 ACT NO. 13 OF 1985 [27th February, 1985.]

THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 ACT NO. 13 OF 1985 [27th February, 1985.] THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 ACT NO. 13 OF 1985 [27th February, 1985.] An Act to provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO OF 2008 AND AND AND AND AND. In the matter between;

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO OF 2008 AND AND AND AND AND. In the matter between; IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14664 OF 2008 In the matter of a petition under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; AND In the matter

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD Special Civil Application No of 2015 AUTOMARK INDUSTRIES (I) LTD Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND 3 Harsha Deva

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD Special Civil Application No of 2015 AUTOMARK INDUSTRIES (I) LTD Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND 3 Harsha Deva IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD Special Civil Application No.13641 of 2015 AUTOMARK INDUSTRIES (I) LTD Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND 3 Harsha Devani & A G Uraizee, JJ Appellants Rep by: Mr SN Soparkar,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. 1. Writ Petition (Civil) No of Judgment reserved on: August 30, 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. 1. Writ Petition (Civil) No of Judgment reserved on: August 30, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ANTI-DUMPING DUTY MATTER 1. Writ Petition (Civil) No.15945 of 2006 Judgment reserved on: August 30, 2007 Judgment delivered on: December 3, 2007 Kalyani

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: 14.02.2012 CM(M) No.557/2008 DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. Through: Mr. D.K. Malhotra, Advocate....

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2020 OF 2013 LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2020 OF 2013 LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2020 OF 2013 LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T ASHOK

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: WP(C) 687/2015 and CM No.1222/2015 VERSUS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: WP(C) 687/2015 and CM No.1222/2015 VERSUS * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.01.2015 + WP(C) 687/2015 and CM No.1222/2015 GILEAD PHARMASSET, LLC... PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR... RESPONDENTS Advocates

More information

IN THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1 IN THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE MATTER OF CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IA NO. OF 2016 IN PIL Writ Petition (Civil) No. 784 of 2015 (Under Order LV Rule 6 of the SCR 2013) Lok Prahari, through

More information

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras In the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2017 H. Navas Basha 24/21, Bharathidasan Street Nehru Nagar Velachery Chennai 600 042 vs 1. The Bar Council of India

More information

Rumi Dhar vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 8 April, 2009 REPORTABLE. State of West Bengal and another

Rumi Dhar vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 8 April, 2009 REPORTABLE. State of West Bengal and another Supreme Court of India Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 661 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP

More information

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP 17 of 2017

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP 17 of 2017 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 1. KANHAIYA LAL KANKANI CRP 17 of 2017 2. SMT. RAJ KUMARI KANKANI..Petitioners -Versus- 1. AMBIKA SUPPLY AND SERVICES

More information

THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS AND OTHER RELATED LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2014

THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS AND OTHER RELATED LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2014 AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA Bill No. 190 of 2014 5 THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS AND OTHER RELATED LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2014 A BILL to amend the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 and further to amend the Delhi

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20 th September, 2010. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). % SH. SATISH CHAND KAPOOR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR s Through:...

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO.3777 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO.3777 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014] REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3777 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.13256 of 2014] Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. LRs... Appellant(s) Versus Baldev

More information