w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



A. Abdul Kader @ A. Babu & Others v/s Jamiah Majid, Ambur, Rep. by its Muthavalli Nadeesa Mohammed Syed, Ambur


Company & Directors' Information:- REP CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26921TN2005PTC055138

    S.A. No. 2018 of 2004

    Decided On, 18 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAVINDRAN

    For the Appellants: R. Subramanian, Advocate. For the Respondent: V. Srimathi, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgement and Decree dated 30.06.2004 passed in A.S.No.45 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thirupathur, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 19.03.2003 passed in O.S.No.123 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambur.)

1. In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 30.06.2004 passed in A.S.No.45 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thirupathur, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 19.03.2003 passed in O.S.No.123 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambur.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(a). Whether in law, have not the Courts below overlooked that the defendants can setup title in 3rd party(justertii) and that will not attract Section 116 of Evidence Act?

(b). Whether in law have not the Courts below omitted see that the notice to quit is not in confirmity with Section 106 of the T.P.Act and hence, the suit itself is not maintainable?'

3. The defendants, who had suffered concurrent judgements and decrees before the Courts below, are the appellants in this second appeal. Briefly stated, the plaintiff has laid the suit against the defendants seeking possession of the suit property and also claiming past arrears of rent and it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are in the occupation of the suit property belonging to the plaintiff on lease basis and inasmuch as the defendants had failed to pay the lease amount properly and also failed to pay the same, despite the repeated demands and the issuance of notice and further, as the suit property is required for the extension of the plaintiff's mosque, it is the case of the plaintiff that the lease of the defendants had been terminated by the quit notice dated 16.11.1994 and despite the same, as the defendants failed to comply with the demands made in the notice, according to the plaintiff, it has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

4. The defendants have resisted the suit preferred by the plaintiff on the footing that the claim of the plaintiff that the defendants are not regular in the payment of lease is incorrect and the further case of the plaintiff that the suit property is required for the extension of the plaintiff's mosque is false and according to them, the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff's mosque and the same is a Government property and no doubt, the plaintiff's mosque had leased out the suit property to the defendants' father Abdul Hameed and accordingly, Abdul Hameed and thereafter, the defendants were paying the lease to the plaintiff and after enquiry, the defendants have come to know that the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff's mosque and accordingly, the notice to quit issued by the plaintiff is invalid and the defendants are not required to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as claimed and further, on account of the continuous and long enjoyment of the suit property by the defendants, the defendants, had set up title to the suit property by prescription and as the suit pertains to the dispute of title as to whether it really belongs to the mosque, it is to be tried and determined only by the tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act and hence, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Materials placed on record go to disclose that the suit property had been leased out by the plaintiff's mosque to the defendants' father Abdul Hameed and he having admitted the title of the plaintiff's mosque in respect of the suit property and been paying the lease to the plaintiff and after him, the defendants also continued to pay the lease amount to the plaintiff and however, as the defendants fail to pay the lease properly, according to the plaintiff, it had terminated the lease of the defendants by issuing the quit notice and further, according to the plaintiff, the suit property is required for its extension and hence, the suit has come to be laid .

6. As above seen, the defendants, at the inception, having admitted the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and has taken the suit property on lease from the plaintiff, in such circumstances, the contention of the defendants that later on enquiry, they came to know that the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff's mosque and it belongs to the Government and hence, the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable, as such, cannot be countenanced. As rightly determined by the Courts below, when the defendants admitting the title of the plaintiff having taken the suit property on lease from the plaintiff is estopped from the disputing the plaintiff's title to the suit property and accordingly, held that the abvoesaid defence put forth by the defendants cannot be allowed, particularly, in the light of the bar of estoppel outlined under Section 116 of the Evidence Act and in such view of the matter, refused to accept the abovesaid plea of the defendants to reject the plaintiff's case. As rightly determined by the Courts below, I do not find any valid reason projected in the second appeal to differ from the abovesaid determination of the Courts below. However, the counsel for the defendants relying upon the decision reported in 2004 (3) CTC 489 (A.Koman Vs. T.S.Balasubramaniyan), contended that the defendants are not precluded from denying the title of the plaintiff and according to him, the Rule of estoppel contemplated under Section 116 of the Evidence Act is restricted only to the denial of the title at the commencement of the tenancy and thus, it is his argument that at a later point of time, on the defendants coming to know that the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff, they are entitled to dispute the claim of title of the plaintiff to the suit property and hence, it is his argument that the Courts below had not properly appreciated the above aspect of the plea of estoppel as per law provided under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. However, the above argument does not merit acceptance. In the abovesaid case, it has been held that the lessees therein had established their claim of denial of title by placing acceptable evidence and accordingly, in such circumstances, the Courts below had held that on the establishment of the abovesaid case of the lessees in projecting the title upon a third party, in such circumstances, it has been held in the abovesaid position that the plea of estoppel contemplated under Section 116 of the Evidence Act would not operate. However, insofar as the present case is concerned, as could be seen from the materials placed on record, particularly, the evidence of DW1, there is no material placed by the defendants to establish that the suit property belongs to the Government. With reference to the abovesaid claim of the defendants, absolutely, no proof is placed. Further, there is no material placed by the defendants that the Government had staked a claim to the suit property and that, any threat of dispossession had emanated from the Government to evict them from the suit property. Further, there is no material placed by the defendants that recognising the title of the government in respect of the suit property, they had been paying tax or kist to the Government with reference to the suit property. In such view of the matter, without placing any material whatsoever to establish the alleged title of the government in respect of the suit property and on the other hand, when it is found that the evidence adduced would go to show that the suit property has not been classified as the poramboke property and that apart, when the defendants having admitted the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and taken the same on lease right from the days of their father and paying the lease also and thereafter, without any basis the denial of the title projected by the defendants as such cannot be accepted sans material pointing to the same and in such view of the matter, it is found that the abovesaid decision relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel for contending that the defence of the defendants setting up title in the third party would not attract the provisions of 116 of the Evidence Act as such cannot be countenanced and accordingly, the Courts below are justified in holding that the defendants are estopped from denying the title to the plaintiff as adumbrated under Section 116 of the Evidence Act and the substantial question of Law No.1 is accordingly, answered against the defendants.

7. It is found that the defendants are not regular in paying the lease amount and accordingly, it is seen that as the defendants failed to pay the lease amount, despite the demands and the issuance of the notice by the plaintiff, it is seen that the plaintiff had issued the quit notice terminating the lease of the defendants and despite the same, there is no response to the quit notice issued by the plaintiff and accordingly, it is found that the defendants are liable to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as demanded. That apart, the defendants have not taken any specific plea as such that the quit notice issued by the plaintiff is invalid. As above seen, only on the footing that the plaintiff has no title to the suit property, the plea has been taken by the defendants that the suit laid by the plaintiff for possession is not maintainable. However, as above seen, when the abovesaid denial of title put forth by the defendants does not have any foundation or material to stand and when the quit notice issued by the plaintiff and exhibited in the matter is not shown to be suffering from any infirmities as such, it has to be held that quit notice issued by the plaintiff is in confirmity with the requirements of Section 106 of the T.P.Act and the suit laid by the plaintiff following the same is maintainable. The substantial question of law No.2 is accordingly, answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

8. The argument has also been put forth by the defendants' counsel that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as according to him, when the defendants have disputed the title of the plaintiff as such, in such circumstances, it is only the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, which would be competent to determine the issues involved in the suit and on that score, it is his contention that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, ordering the eviction of the defendants are liable to be set aside. In this connection, reliance is placed upon the decisions reported in (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 561 (Rajasthan Wakf Board Vs. Devaki nandan Pathak and others) and 2017-5-L.W.34 (K.G.Jilendran Vs. Mohideen Andavar Dharga and Pallivasal and Meera Noordheen Dharga and Pallivasal through its Trustees & others). Per contra, the plaintiff's counsel contended that on the date of laying of the suit, there was no provision in the Wakf Act conferring the jurisdiction on the tribunal constituted under the said Act as regards the determination of the issues concerning eviction of the tenants in occupation of the property, which was admittedly wakf property and hence, it is her contention that the suit laid by the plaintiff for eviction/possession is maintainable and in this connection, reliance is placed upon the decision reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 726 (Ramesh Gobinadram (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf).

9. The abovesaid plea has been raised by the defendants on the footing that the plaintiff has no title to the suit property. However, as above seen, when with reference to the abovesaid case of the defendants, there is no material whatsoever placed by them and in such view of the matter, it is seen that the plea of the defendants setting up title on a third party having no foundation, it is evident that the abovesaid plea has been taken by the defendants only for the purpose of the case to stall the eviction proceedings against them. That apart, when the defendants have been inducted into the suit proper

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ty only as the lessees of the plaintiff from the days of their father and accordingly, the defendants had been also paying the lease amount to the plaintiff without any demur and in such circumstances, their defence that the plaintiff has no title to the suit property as claimed in the suit without laying any basis for the same or placing any material to substantiate the same, it is found that the denial of the title of the plaintiff to the suit property raised by the defendants is unjustified and cannot be countenanced and in such view of the matter, no bonafide is seen in the defence taken by the defendants as regards the denial of title of the plaintiff. In such view of the matter, as rightly argued by the plaintiff's counsel, considering the date of the institution of the suit, it is seen that the civil Court had all the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and in such view of the matter, it is found that the decision relied upon by the defendants' counsel would have no application to the case at hand on facts and accordingly, the Courts below had rightly determined that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's suit. In the light of the above discussions, the second appeal is found to be devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition,if any, is closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-08-2020 G. Jayasri Versus The State, Rep. By the Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Dept., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2020 R. Kannan Versus State rep by the Inspector of Police, Inamkulathur Police Station, Trichy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-07-2020 M/s. Linga Transformers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Villupuram & Another Versus Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2020 Bhagyamma Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sheshadripuram Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2020 K.G. Ravikiran Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2020 Garikipati Bulli Nayana Versus M/s. M.S.R. Housing & Resorts Private Limited rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-07-2020 S. Sachin Narayan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-07-2020 R. Ramesh Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary & Another High Court of Karnataka
28-07-2020 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Branch Manager, Cantonment Versus Kaanikkaimery & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-07-2020 NSL Sugars Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Liason) H.V. Amarnath Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary (Sugar) Commerce & Industries Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
24-07-2020 Vishwanath & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Ranebennur Town Police, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
24-07-2020 P. Prabhavathi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-07-2020 Narasimharao @ Appi & Others Versus State of Karnataka by Turuvekere Police Station, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
24-07-2020 D.Siluvai Venance (Wrongly mentioned as Permons) Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-07-2020 K.P.P. Panneer Chelvan & Another Versus State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai City-I Detachment, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-07-2020 Vikram Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
23-07-2020 Aqua Pump Industries, Rep by its Managing Partner Ramaswamy Kumaravelu & Another Versus N. Raju, Trading as S.M.Agriculture & Electronics, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-07-2020 Syed Hidayath @ Chotu Dubbel Versus State by KG Halli PS Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
22-07-2020 Y.M. Chetan & Another Versus State By Channarayapatna Town P.S, Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka
22-07-2020 Sankar @ Jeyasankar @ Sivasankaran Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Udaiyalipatti Police Station, Pudukkottai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
22-07-2020 V. Venkata Siva Kumar Versus Institute of Cost Accountants of India, Rep. by the President, M.K. Thakur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-07-2020 S. John Peter Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-07-2020 S. John Peter Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2020 M/s. Sarvodhaya Sangam Khadhi Vasthralayam, Rep. by its Secretary, Govindarajalu Versus S. Dhanalakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Sk. Imran Ali Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
15-07-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by their Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Sivarajan Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
14-07-2020 A.N. Prakash Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Iqra Granite Crusher, Rep. by its Partner Ahamedulla Khan, Kolar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Asha & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Santhosha Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Radhakrishna Reddy & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
13-07-2020 Dr. K.J. Joseph & Others Versus The Mattathur Grama Panchayath, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 B. Manjunath & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
13-07-2020 Koti Lingaiah & Another Versus State of Karnataka by, Rep. by Govt. Pleader, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
10-07-2020 Kuppusamy & Another Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthukottai Sub Division, Tiruvallur High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2020 Sharathkumar Versus The State of Karnataka by Annapoorneshwari, Rep. by its Government Pleader, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 S.R. Ganesan Versus The State rep., by its, Principal Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2020 Mohammed Shahid Khaleel Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 M.P. Lokesha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
08-07-2020 M. Alagappan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
08-07-2020 Waheed Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
08-07-2020 Sakunthala Versus State Rep. By the Inspector of Police Supreme Court of India
07-07-2020 Dr. Y. Kedareswari Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Social Welfare (SC Development) Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-07-2020 Sunitha Krishnan Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-07-2020 M/s. Srini Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Red. by its Managing Director, Tera Chinnappa Reddy Versus Union of India, rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-07-2020 B.A.S. Devi Prasad Versus The Telangana Co-operative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-07-2020 The Management of M/s. Therelek Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, S. Venkatramana Bhat Versus K. Dharman High Court of Karnataka
01-07-2020 K.T. Augustian Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary, Irrigation Dept., Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
01-07-2020 M/s. Salem Constructions, A registered Partnership Firm, Rep. By its Managing Director, N. Selvam & Others Versus K. Santhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 Dr. P.S. Sandeep & Others Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-06-2020 R. Sampath Versus Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-06-2020 P.K. Thankappan Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla Police Station, Thiruvalla [Crime No. 731 of 2009] Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
26-06-2020 Far N Par (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad Rep. by its Director Naraharisetti Sirusha Versus Galt Pharma Exports Private Limited, Secunderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
26-06-2020 Bismi Aquatic Products, Rep by its Partner, M. Ashraf Ali Versus The Superintending Engineer, Ramanathapuram Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Ramanathapuram & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-06-2020 Suresh Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
25-06-2020 Sunil @ Sunil Ashok Gadivaddar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
25-06-2020 M/s. Goodwill Leather Art Rep By its Prop Md Quddus ALi Alias Md Quddus Ali Molla Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 V. Vasantha Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to the Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-06-2020 Maruthi @ Polard Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 Rohini Gogoi (Under Suspension) Versus State of Assam Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Health Engineering Deptt. High Court of Gauhati
23-06-2020 Swetha Shri Selvakumar Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 The State rep.by. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai Versus R.S. Bharathi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 M/s. Acme Trade And Agencies, ASSAM Versus Union of India Rep. By The Secy. to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 Tanveer Ahmed Versus State Women Police Station, Rep. State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
22-06-2020 B. Ramamoorthy & Another Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-06-2020 A. Devaraj Versus The State of Tamilnadu, rep. By its Chief Secretary to the Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-06-2020 Prakasha Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
19-06-2020 Chandra Marbles Mattannur, Rep By Its Properties C.M. Jeeja Versus C.H. Ramachandran & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Maria Lijose Kumar & Others Versus The State, Rep by The Inspector of Police, CBCID-HQRS, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-06-2020 N. Krishnamoorthy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-06-2020 M. Nagalakshmi Versus Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-06-2020 Md Kameual Islam & Others Versus The State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-06-2020 M.V. Ramani Versus The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Punnam Chander complex, Chowrastha, Hanmkonda, Warangal Versus Sangeraboina Uppalaiah & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-06-2020 G. Gnaneshwar Versus The State of A.P., rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB, Hyderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-06-2020 J. Antony Jayakumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home (Prison IV), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-06-2020 State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, O/o. Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu, Chennai Versus M/s. National Pharmaceuticals [A-3], A Division of Rider Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Kamalchand Jain, Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-06-2020 Sethupathi Ramalingam & Another Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sooramangalam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2020 The Salem District Lorry Owners Association rep.by its President V. Chennakesavan Versus The Inspector of Factories, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2020 Rajeswari Versus The state rep by the Inspector of Police, Kariyapattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Sakthivel Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Inspector of Police, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, Neyveli T.S. High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Chennai Garrtech Ltd., Rep. By its Director, L.S. Abinesha Babu Versus Inspector General of Registration, Santhome & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Anandan Versus State Rep by the Inspector of Police W-17, Peravallur Police Station Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Jeyachandran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Public (Foreigners.I) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 M. Parthasarathi & Another Versus The State Level Scrutiny Committee rep. by its Chairman Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Nisar Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Director General of Prosecution, High Court of, Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
03-06-2020 Somasundaram @ Somu Versus The State Rep. By The Deputy Commissioner of Police Supreme Court of India
03-06-2020 V. Saravanan Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Rep. by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-06-2020 Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), Rep. by its Chairman Prof. M.H. Jawahirullah Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 PUEBLO HOLDINGS LIMITED, Rep. by its authorised signatory Siddhesh Sham Kshirsagar Versus EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC, A company incorporated under the appropriate laws of the United Arab Emirates having its registered office and/or business address at ETA Star House, United Arab Emirates & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 Merugu Narsaiah @ Narsimha Reddy & Others Versus The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-06-2020 P. Venkatasubramani & Another Versus Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Dr. A.K. Sheik Manzoor Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 A. Janakiraman Versus The Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, rep. by its Chief Executive, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Balraj Versus State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-06-2020 Subramani Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri District High Court of Judicature at Madras