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



Amar Chand Singh v/s C.B.I. Thru. Director, New Delhi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2006PTC235208

Company & Directors' Information:- S CHAND AND COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L22219DL1970PLC005400

Company & Directors' Information:- S CHAND AND COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22219DL1970PLC005400

Company & Directors' Information:- H B SINGH PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29299WB1975PTC030204

Company & Directors' Information:- R N SINGH & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310JH1975PTC001224

Company & Directors' Information:- B L AND CO NEW DELHI PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1968PTC004910

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- NEW INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36999TN1940PTC001776

Company & Directors' Information:- SINGH AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36101PB1982PTC005152

Company & Directors' Information:- J N SINGH AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Liquidation] CIN = U74999DL1908PTC000014

    Misc. Bench No. 11345 of 2020

    Decided On, 27 July 2020

    At, High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI

    For ther Petitioner: Prashant Singh Atal, R.K. Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: G.A., A.S.G.



Judgment Text


Heard Shri R. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Surya Bhan Pandey, the learned Senior Advocate & Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the Central Bureau of Investigation and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for following reliefs:

"a. Issue a writ or direction or order in the nature of mandamus, thereby, declaring that the order/judgment dated 16.07.2015 passed in the case titled as Dr. Nutan Thakur vs. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary & others, Regd. Misc. Bench No. 12396 dated 2014 is not binding upon the petitioner as petitioner had deliberately been omitted from impleading as a party in the PIL Petition filed by respondent no.5 and the decision dated 16.07.2015 passed in the said writ petition be recalled and the case be decided after impleading the petitioner as party and affording the petitioner opportunity of being heard as petitioner was necessary party in the said PIL Petition as mentioned above filed by respondent no.5.

b. Issue a writ or direction or order in the nature of Certiorari, thereby, declaring that the registration of the FIRs i.e. RC/DST/2015/A/0004/CBI/STF/DLI dated 30.07.2015 under section 120-B IPC read with section 409/420/466/467/469/471 IPC read with section 13(2) and section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and FIR RC/DST/2018/004/CBI/STF/DLI dated 17.01.2018 under section 420 read with section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act read with section 120-B IPC are nullity and hence they be quashed qua the petitioner and thereby dropping/closing all the proceedings initiated upon FIR No.4 dated 30.07.2015, RC/DST/2015/A/0004/CBI/STF/DLI dated 30.07.2015 under section 120-B IPC read with section 409/420/466/467/469/471 IPC read with section 13(2) and section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and FIR No.884/RC/DST/2018/A/0004/STB/Delhi dated 12.03.2020 under section 420 read with ahc1234 section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act read with section 120-B IPC qua the petitioner.

c. Issue a writ or direction or order in the nature of prohibition, thereby, restraining the Respondent No.1/CBI not to act against the petitioner in any manner whatsoever in pursuance and subsequent to the impugned order/judgment dated 16.07.2015 passed in case titled as Dr. Nutan Thakur vs. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary & others, Regd. Misc. Bench No.12396 dated 2014 qua the petitioner.

d. Issue a writ or direction or order in the nature of mandamus, thereby, commanding to the Respondent No.1/CBI for calling for record of investigation in the FIRs i.e. RC/DST/2015/A/0004/CBI/STF/DLI dated 30.07.2015 under section 120-B IPC read with section 409/420/466/467/469/471 IPC read with section 13(2) and section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and FIR RC/DST/2018/004/CBI/STF/DLI dated 17.01.2020 under section 420 read with section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act read with section 120-B IPC to see that the IO has carried unfair and biased investigation in the matter and further if it is held so directions for departmental action be passed against IO and concerned SP of the respondent/CBI and as well as registration of the case under the appropriate provisions of Indian Penal Code."

From perusal of the prayer clause of the writ petition what appears is that a declaratory relief has been sought to the effect that the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation (Misc. Bench No.12396 of 2014, Dr. Nutan Thakur vs. State of U.P. and others) is not binding upon the petitioner as he was not impleaded in the said writ petition as a party-respondent and consequently the said judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 be recalled and the writ petition decided afresh after impleading the petitioner as a party and affording him an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has also prayed that for issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the F.I.R. dated 30.07.2015 lodged under section 120-B, I.P.C. read with sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 469 and 471, I.P.C. and section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act as aslo F.I.R. dated 17.01.2018 lodged under section 420, I.P.C. and section 13(2) and section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and read with section 120, I.P.C. and further to quash all the proceedings initiated on the basis of the F.I.Rs dated 30.07.2015 and 12.03.2020. A direction has also been sought to be issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) not to act against the petitioner in any manner in pursuance of and subsequent to the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Nutan Thakur (supra). The petitioner has also prayed for calling for the record of investigation in the F.I.Rs dated 30.07.2015 and 17.01.2018 as described above.

In substance, the petitioner has sought review of the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned Public Interest Litigation filed by Dr. Nutan Thakur whereby a direction was issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation into all allegations of corruption and amassing of unaccounted money by the ninth respondent therein and in regard to all transactions, persons and entities connected thereto.

It has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since in the Public Interest Litigation, which culminated in the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015, the petitioner was not impleaded as a party-respondent, though he was a necessary party and therefore, he was denied of opportunity of being heard and as such the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 rendered by this Court in Public Interest Litigation is not binding upon him. It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioner that various factual aspects have been dealt with while deciding the P.I.L and had the petitioner been given the opportunity, he would have explained, however, since he was not a party to the proceedings of the P.I.L as such on the basis of the said judgment dated 16.07.2015 no F.I.R. and consequential investigation proceedings could have ensued against the petitioner.

Shri R.K. Shrama, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further states that he is not challenging the finality of the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015; rather his submission is that the said judgment and order is not applicable to the petitioner for the reasons as aforesaid. His submission is that since on the basis of the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 rendered by this Court in the aforementioned Public Interest Litigation, F.I.Rs have been lodged against the petitioner where he is being treated to be an accused as such he was a necessary party in the Public Interest Litigation and further that the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 having been rendered in his absence before the Court is not binding upon him.

Certain factual aspects have also been sought to be raised by the learned counsel representing the petitioner by stating that it is a case where the Central Bureau of Investigation by adopting the policy of pick and choose has made the petitioner an accused though others have been left out. To substantiate his submission, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was only one of the members of the Tender Committee and Estimate Committee and while proceeding against the petitioner the said members of the Tender Committee and Estimate Committee have been left out. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities who approved the tender have been left out and as such it is a case where the petitioner is being subject to hostile discrimination and thus his fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India are being clearly violated.

On the other hand, learned counsel representing the Central Bureau of Investigation, Shri Pandey has opposed the prayers made in this writ petition and has submitted that if the petitioner in any manner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation he ought to have filed a review petition and the nature of declaration being sought in this writ petition in respect of a judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in writ jurisdiction itself is not legally tenable. It has further been contended by the learned counsel representing the Central Bureau of Investigation that the petitioner is avoiding the process of law and that the First Information Reports against him have been lodged by the C.B.I for the reason that during the course of investigation of the First Information Report lodged pursuant to the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 various evidences and materials were gathered pointing out complicity of the petitioner in certain criminal acts. His submission is that in case during the course of investigation of any First Information Report where certain individuals are not named but their involvement surfaces in commission of crime, such individuals can be charge-sheeted or even fresh F.I.R. can be registered.

Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State has supported the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate representing the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel representing the respective parties, what we notice is that thrust of the argument of the learned counsel counsel for the petitioner is that since he was not a party in the Public Interest Litigation, he was thus denied opportunity of being heard, as such the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 is not binding upon him and accordingly all consequential proceedings drawn by the Central Bureau of Investigation including lodging of F.I.Rs and investigation into the same are a nullity and in fact are liable to be quashed.

Memo of the Public Interest Litigation filed by Dr. Nutan Thakur is on record. It is true that the prayer made in the said Public Interest Litigation was for referring the matter, related with ninth respondent in the said P.I.L, Shri Yadav Singh, to the Central Bureau of Investigation to register the First Information Report under the Prevention of Corruption Act and any other provision of law and to investigate all the matters. However, when we see the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 passed in the said Public Interest Litigation, what we find is that direction was issued for conducing an investigation by the C.B.I. into all the allegations of corruption and amassing of unaccounted money by the ninth respondent in the P.I.L and also in regard to all transactions, persons and entities connected thereto. The Division Bench while delivering the said judgment dated 16.07.2015 has taken various aspects of the matter raised before it and while discarding setting up of a Commission all Enquiry by the State, giving reasons has noticed that the Commission of Enquiry constituted by the State Government would have no jurisdiction to enquire into wider allegations of misuse of power or to investigate into the interrelationship of the ninth respondent (Yadav Singh) with other persons for the reason that terms of reference of the Commission of Enquiry were confined to Shri Yadav Singh alone. The relevant extract of the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 is being quoted below:

"Firstly, the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry are evidently confined to the ninth respondent and ninth respondent alone. The Commission of Inquiry would have no jurisdiction to enquire into wider allegations of the misuse of power or to investigate into the interrelationship of the ninth respondent with other persons in respect of whom there is no reference to the Commission."

Yet at another place the Division Bench in its judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 has noticed that "the allegations mentioned against the ninth respondent, Shri Yadav Singh, are not just allegations of personal corruption or of personal aggrandizement".

The Division Bench in its judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 has observed that "there is a serious case to be probed on whether as alleged the activities of the ninth respondent (Sri Yadav Singh) have benefactors in high places in the State who have been associated through their close relatives and associates with the business dealings of the ninth respondent and his family". The division Bench while considering the entire material available on record came to the conclusion that having regard to the complex nature of the case, the wide ramifications involving corruption by persons in public offices and the gravity of the allegations, are required to be probed and accordingly a fit and proper case has been made out for investigation by the CBI. Thus what is apparent is that the Court while considering the aforementioned Public Interest Litigation was concerned not only in relation to the allegations of corruption against the ninth respondent therein but in relation to corruption and other unlawful business dealing with persons associated with him. The operative portion of the judgment dated 16.07.2015 rendered by the Division Bench is extracted herein below:

"For these reasons, we allow the petition and direct that the Central Bureau of Investigation shall conduct an investigation into all allegations of corruption and amassing of uncounted money by the ninth respondent and in regard to all transactions, persons and entities connected thereto."

In compliance of the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 the First Information Report dated 30.07.2015 was lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation wherein Sri Yadav Singh the then Chief Engineer, NOIDA/Greater NOIDA/Yamuna Expressway and the other unknown persons are named as accused. It appears that another First Information Report dated 17.01.2018 was lodged in which after completion of the investigation by the C.B.I. a charge-sheet has been submitted on 08.06.2020. The said charge-sheet (Report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is available on record as annexure 3 to the writ petition. Source of information mentioned in this charge-sheet is the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No.12396 of 2014 (PIL). In the said charge-sheet apart from Sri Yadav Singh, various other individuals have also been shown as accused. The petitioner has been shown as accused no.4 (A-4). The said charge-sheet further reveals that a regular case was registered by the C.B.I. on the basis of findings of preliminary enquiry which was registered on the basis of inputs received out of the investigation into two cases against Sri Yadav Singh. It further reveals that above two cases were registered by the C.B.I. at New Delhi on 30.07.2015 in compliance of the order of this Court dated 16.07.2015. The facts mentioned in the charge-sheet further reveal that during the course of preliminary enquiry it was prima facie found that five firms/companies of the associates of Sri Yadav Singh and his family members were allegedly favoured unduly by Shri Yadav Singh in conspiracy with other officers/officials, NOIDA authorities and private persons and accordingly, the First Information Report dated 17.01.2018 was registered to conduct the detailed investigation. As per the facts recited in the said charge-sheet, complicity of not only Sri Yadav Singh was found in certain criminal acts but various other officers of NOIDA authority including petitioner, Amar Chand Singh, (Finance Controller) have also been found involved and thus the charge-sheet has been filed wherein the petitioner has been named as an accused. Apart from the aforesaid facts two First Information Reports dated 15.07.2015 and 17.01.2018, the petitioner in para 42 to the writ petition has also mentioned that in the month of May, 2020 he came to know that the C.B.I. has filed another F.I.R. dated 12.03.2020 under section 420 of I.P.C. read with section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120 of I.P.C. against certain officials of NOIDA Authority including the petitioner, though the said F.I.R. has not been brought on record of this writ petition.

The question for consideration in this case is as to whether the proceedings relating to First Information Reports, dated 30.07.2015, 17.01.2018 and 12.03.2020 are vitiated qua the petitioner for the reason that he was not impleaded as a party in the Public Interest Litigation where the judgment was rendered on 16.07.2015. We have already noticed above and extracted certain portions of the judgment dated 16.07.2015 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the Public Interest Litigation. As already noticed above, though the prayer made in the Public Interest Litigation was confined to the alleged corruption said to have been indulged into by Sri Yadav Singh, however, the Division Bench while considering the overall aspects of the matter and material placed before it directed the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation not only into the allegation of corruption and amassing of uncounted money by Sri Yadav Singh but to all transactions and entities connected thereto.

This Court in a case where the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked seeking a direction for conducting the investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation for referring some investigation into some criminal act by the Central Bureau of Investigation is expected to be examined if on the basis of the material placed before it, prima-facie, the case for issuing such direction is made out or not. This legal position is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal Vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, There are condition precedent for exercising our jurisdiction for issuing a direction for investigation into the criminal act by the Central Bureau of Investigation. It is well settled that this power to entrust the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation by the High Court is to be exercised in special circumstances and sparingly. This power can be exercised where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigation and where an incident may have national and international ramifications and where an order may be necessary for doing complete justice in enforcing the fundamental rights.

As observed above, it is equally settled that the decision to direct the enquiry/investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation can be made only this Court after considering the material placed before it includes that such material discloses a prima-facie case calling by investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other similar agency. We may observe that when the investigation is ordered into some alleged crime or First Information Report, such direction is based on prima-facie satisfaction of the Court on the basis of material produced before it. At the juncture of passing of the order for investigation into some crime or First Information Report only prima-facie satisfaction is formed and full facts and circumstances leading to the alleged crime are in fact the matter of investigation. During course of investigation, it is not necessary for the Investigating Agency to confine itself prob in respect of the person named in the First Information Report alone. While investigating the crime Investigating Agency may come across the situations where the material gathered during course of investigation may point out complicity of certain person not named in the First Information Report. Merely because some person is not named in the First Information Report will not bar the Investigating Agency from probing the role of such a person not named in the First Information Report.

So far as this case is concerned, the direction of the Division Bench judgment and order primarily related to conducting of the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the allegation of corruption and amassing of uncounted money by Sri Yadav Singh. However, the Court has clearly directed that investigation shall be conducted in regard to all the transactions and persons and entities connected thereto.

Though, there is no dispute that the petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation which resulted into the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court was not a party, however, if we examine the pleadings made in the Public Interest Litigation, we find that allegations were put-forth primarily in respect of Sri Yadav Singh. Having said that we also have to keep in mind that in the matter like present one where the allegations of corruption are not only against an individual but in regard to his transactions with various persons and entities connected thereto, it would have been the exercise of futility calling upon the persons and entities to have their say in the Public Interest Litigation. In any case, the role and involvement of the petitioner and many such other persons and entities in the alleged crime has been found by the Investigating Agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation in this case, during course of investigation of the First Information Report which was lodged pursuant to the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 rendered in the Public Interest Litigation and not prior to the said investigation.

In our considered opinion, if during course of investigation of crime entrusted to any Investigating Agency (in this case Central Bureau of Investigation), if certain criminal act comes to light then law does not bar lodging of the First Information Report against a person whose complicity is found during course of investigation; rather it will be the duty of the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation into the role of such person in the crime, as well.

Further, in our considered opinion, the kind of declaration which has been sought by the petitioner in these proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be granted as he is seeking a prayer to declare that the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 rendered in the Public Interest Litigation is not binding on him and it was not, thus, applicable to him, for the reason that the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 was rendere

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also to be noticed that the present petition is not seeking review of the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015; rather it only seeks a declaration that it is not binding on the petitioner. We are of the considered opinion that seeking such kind of a declaration in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of a judgment and order rendered by this Court under Article 226 itself will not be legally permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a large number of judgments which, in view of our opinion expressed above, do not have any application to the facts of the present case. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner are in relation to providing opportunity of hearing by this Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in case any relief adverse to a person is sought. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law that if any person is likely to be affected by the outcome of any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he is a necessary party to such proceedings. However, in view of our discussions made above, we have already held that these proceedings are not review proceedings and further that there is no bar for the Investigating Agency to investigate and probe the role of person(s) who during course of the investigation are found involved in the crime though are not named in the First Information Report. Though the Public Interest Litigation had sought investigation into the allegation of corruption against the 9th respondent in the said Public Interest Litigation (Sri Yadav Singh) but the role of the petitioner in the crime has come on surface in the crime during the course of investigation conducted subsequent to the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 rendered by the Coordinated Bench of this Court in the aforementioned Public Interest Litigation and as such what we find is that the petitioner cannot be said to be a necessary party to the proceedings of the Public Interest Litigation at the time when the said Public Interest Litigation, which culminated into the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015, was heard and decided. We cannot lose sight of this fact. In the discussions made and reasons given above, we find that this writ petition lacks force and reluctantly is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

06-10-2020 Rikhab Jain Versus M/S. Trackon Couriers Private Limited, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-10-2020 Kamal Chand Patel Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
05-10-2020 Tarun Kanti Chowdhury & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Bayer New Zealand Limited Versus Ministry For Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd. G-III, Amar Palace, Panchsheel Square, Dhantoli, Nagpur Versus Union of India Through its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shramshakti Bhavan, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-10-2020 Jitendra Singh Dhillon Versus State of MP & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
01-10-2020 Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 Gurcharan Singh Versus The State of Punjab Supreme Court of India
30-09-2020 Lalatendu Nayak & Another Versus Supertech Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust, Established & Namakkal Represented by Chairman, V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary Cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 M/s. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-09-2020 Rhonpal Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus New Delhi Municipal Council & Others High Court of Delhi
24-09-2020 Kajal Mukesh Singh & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Inspector-in-charge of Malad Police Station) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-09-2020 C.M. Gadha & Another Versus Bar Council of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
22-09-2020 Rajbahadur Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Guptasons Jewellers & Gems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Versus Shanthamma & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Vaibhav Prasad Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
17-09-2020 Advocate Thoufeek Ahamed Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary (Justice), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2020 Katherine Anne Starr Phillips Versus New Zealand Police Court of Appeal of New Zealand
15-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager Versus Girija & Another High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through The Regional Manager, New Delhi Versus Dinesh Vijay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-09-2020 Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, Rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin Versus The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
14-09-2020 Lakhan Singh Versus State of NCT of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
11-09-2020 Ranjeet Singh Raghuvanshi Versus The State of M.P. Through Police Station, Kotali High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 Hriday Narayan Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
09-09-2020 Gyan Singh Thakur & Others Versus State of MP. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
09-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Represented by Its Manager, Calicut Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
09-09-2020 Santosh @ Sada Mahadev Chand Rakodi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
09-09-2020 Pyar Singh Versus Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-09-2020 The Dental Council of India, Aiwan-E-Galib Marg, New Delhi Versus PSR Lakhmi Bhuvaneshwari Preethi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Karaikudi Versus Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Ramraj Singh Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Rai Singh Versus State of M.P. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-09-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Somwati & Others Supreme Court of India
04-09-2020 Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus State Public Service Tribunal Thru.Chairman & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
04-09-2020 Vijay Singh Yadav Versus Ajay Shanker Rai High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 Diwan Chand Goyal Versus National Capital Region Transport Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
01-09-2020 Hyundai Motor India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Harshad Ramji Chauhan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2020 M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore Versus M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust Established and Administering, Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research, Rep. by Chairman V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 New Negendra Lorry Transport Versus M/s. Telangana Foods a Government of Telangana Enterprises & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-08-2020 Mukesh Singh Versus State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) Supreme Court of India
31-08-2020 Gajendra Singh Negi Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
31-08-2020 Amanpreet Singh & Others Versus Union Territory of J&K High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
31-08-2020 M/s. Omaxe Limited, New Delhi & Another Versus Divya Karun & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-08-2020 L.B.S. Group of Eduction Institute Through Its Director Shri Prateek Mathur, Rajasthan Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-08-2020 Rajendra Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
28-08-2020 Dalbir Singh Versus State of Nct of Delhi & Others Supreme Court of India
28-08-2020 Ram Vikram Singh (In Person) Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-08-2020 Inter Gold India Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2020 Renu Gupta Versus Ram Pal Singh, Basic Education Officer & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-08-2020 The State of Punjab & Others Versus Davinder Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
26-08-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Versus Maninderjeet Singh Khera National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2020 Manga @ Manga Singh Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
26-08-2020 Vijendra Singh Yadav Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-08-2020 Davinder Nath Sethi & Another Versus M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2020 Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Represented by its Vicepresident (Legal) Ch. Viswanath Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-08-2020 Sharad Kumar Singh & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-08-2020 Gopal Krishna Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare Development, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-08-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Villupuram Versus J. Manimaran & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2020 Raj Pal Singh Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Haryana, Rohtak Supreme Court of India
24-08-2020 Sanjay Nayyar Versus State of NCT Delhi, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 Vikrant Singh Malik & Others Versus Supertech Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
24-08-2020 R.K. Dawra Versus Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
24-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Singhla Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 Arun Kumar Singh & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-08-2020 Pankaj Chaudhary, HCS, Special Secretary, Public Health Engineer Department Versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
21-08-2020 Dr. Parimal Roy, Working as Director, Indian Council of Agricultural Research NIVEDI Versus The President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
21-08-2020 Ranjit Singh Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
20-08-2020 Sardar Bahginder Singh Versus Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
19-08-2020 V.K. Somarajan Pillai Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Govt. of India, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
19-08-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 Babubhai Bhagvanji Tandel Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 Jatinder Pal Singh @ Sunny Versus State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Constituent Attorney, Rajasthan Versus Baldev Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 Vijay Cotton & Fibre Co., Maharashtra Versus New India Insurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-08-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Astha Cement Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-08-2020 Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav @ Ritlal Ray @ Ritlal Prasad Singh Versus The U.O.I. through B. Hazara, Assistant Director, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (Complainant) & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-08-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-08-2020 Lal Chand Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
17-08-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chhattisgarh & Another Versus Astu Ram & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-08-2020 M/S Anjaneya Bisanpur Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Dilawar Singh Rawat & Another High Court of Delhi
17-08-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Versus Shailendra Prasad Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Preet Pal Singh Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another Supreme Court of India
14-08-2020 Rabindra Singh Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-08-2020 Kasmikoya Biyyammabiyoda & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Home Secretary, Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
14-08-2020 Satyavir Singh & Others Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana