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



Amitabh v/s Amit Rghunandan Saran Sharma & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- S C SHARMA AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1948PTC001507

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035620

Company & Directors' Information:- AMIT AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1981PTC011918

Company & Directors' Information:- K P SHARMA (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1988PTC045569

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2017PTC220657

Company & Directors' Information:- P C SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1981PTC012750

Company & Directors' Information:- J. R. SHARMA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24211DL1966PTC004602

Company & Directors' Information:- M K SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74994DL1982PTC014090

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA AND SHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2015PTC276949

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA & CO. PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28991WB1949PTC018064

    Writ Petition No. 6626 of 2019

    Decided On, 04 March 2020

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH PITALE

    For the Petitioner: Amit Khare, Counsel. For the Respondents: R.D. Dhande h/f. M.A. Gadge, Mahesh Singh Counsels.



Judgment Text


1. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is, as to whether the petitioner satisfied requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, so as to claim that he was entitled for seeking leave to defend, in a proceeding initiated by the respondents for eviction of the petitioner from the suit house i.e. Flat No.102 at 18, Bless Apartments, Plot No.60, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur.

2. The respondents filed an application under Section 24 of the aforesaid Act, seeking recovery of possession of the aforesaid flat from the petitioner on expiry of leave and license agreement between the parties. It was the case of respondents that they had given the said flat on leave and license to the petitioner, initially for a period between 01/07/2017 to 31/10/2017, which was extended to 31/03/2018 and finally for further period of 04 months upto 31/07/2018. Registered agreement of leave and license was executed between the parties for the said purpose.

3. According to the respondents, the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of payment as agreed under the leave and license agreement and the petitioner also failed to vacate the said flat upon expiry of the license period. In this backdrop, the respondents sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 29/09/2018, asking the petitioner to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the flat and to pay the dues towards agreed rent along with interest, as also damages @ Rs.1500/- per day for having occupied the flat beyond the period of leave and license agreement. On 12/10/2018, the petitioner sent his reply to the said notice, contending that there had been talks of purchase of the said flat by petitioner from the respondents and on that basis certain claims were made against the respondents. On 25/10/2018, the respondents sent a counter reply/rejoinder to the petitioner denying the claims made by him. In this backdrop, on 22/11/2018, the respondents filed the aforesaid application under section 24 of the said Act against the petitioner before the Competent Authority under the said Act at Nagpur for the following prayers.

“PRAYER :- It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to pass an order for eviction of the Nonapplicant from suit flat described above, and for delivery of its vacant possession of the same to the Applicants;

(ii) And for recovery of arrears of license fee and outstanding due against the Non-applicant from 1st January, 2018 to 31st July,2018 @Rs.18,500/-p.m.total Rs.1,29,500/- with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. till realization;

(iii) And for damages for wrongful possession of the suit premises by Nonapplicant from 1st August, 2018 onwards @ Rs.1500/- per day till handing over actual physical possession of suit flat by Nonapplicant to Applicants;

(iv) This Hon’ble Authority/Court be further pleased to direct the Non-applicant to deposit in this court entire uptodate arrears of license fees and recurring damages, along with interest accrued over them @ 18% p.a., till date and hereafter every month regularly till the decision of this case;

(v) Saddle the cost of proceeding upon the Non-applicant.

(vi) Grant any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

4. Upon receiving summons on 10/12/2018, the petitioner filed an application for grant of permission to seek leave to contest the application for eviction filed by the respondents. This application was signed and filed by an Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. On 22/07/2019, the Competent Authority Maharashtra Rent Control Act, Court Nagpur, i.e. the Court below passed an order rejecting the said application filed by the Advocate, on the ground that Section 43(4)(a) of the aforesaid Act required the tenant or licensee to file an affidavit stating grounds on which he was seeking to contest the application for eviction and to obtain leave from the Competent Authority within 30 days of service of summons. It was held by the said Court that since no affidavit as mandatorily required under Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act was on record, the application deserved to be dismissed.

5. Thereafter, on 20/08/2019, an affidavit of the petitioner was filed before the said Court purporting to be an affidavit in support of the application seeking leave to defend already filed on record. In this affidavit, it was reiterated on behalf of the petitioner, as stated in the application filed by the Advocate, that a suit for specific performance of contract had been filed by the petitioner in respect of alleged agreement between the parties and that therefore, he was entitled for leave to defend. An application was also filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 22/07/2019 of the said Court, whereby the application for leave to defend signed only by the Advocate had been rejected. The respondents filed their reply to the said application and sought dismissal of the same. By order dated 23/09/2019, the said Court rejected the aforesaid application of the petitioner by holding that there was no provision in the aforesaid Act to set aside an order of rejection of leave to defend.

6. The petitioner filed the present writ petition in which, initially only the order dated 23/09/2019, passed by the said Court was challenged, but, later an application for amendment (Civil Application No.398/2020) was filed in this Court, whereby amendment was sought in order to challenge the order dated 22/07/2019, passed by the said Court. The said application was allowed by this Court on 17/02/2020, when arguments of the learned counsel for the rival parties were heard and judgment was reserved in the present writ petition.

7. Mr. Amit Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below had committed an error in passing the impugned orders and that the approach adopted by the Court below was hyper technical in nature. It was submitted that Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act was sufficiently complied with by the petitioner, if the application dated 10/12/2018 filed on behalf of the petitioner was read with affidavit dated 20/08/2019 filed by the petitioner. It was submitted that Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act required the petitioner to appear before the Court below within 30 days of service of summons and to state grounds on which he was seeking to contest the application for eviction and to obtain leave from the Court below. It was submitted that the application filed on behalf of the petitioner signed by his counsel on 10/12/2018 was admittedly within 30 days of service of summons. The only deficiency in the said application was absence of affidavit of the petitioner and this stood removed when the affidavit dated 20/08/2019 was placed on record by the petitioner, specifically in support of the application dated 10/12/2018 already filed on record. It was submitted that in this situation the Court below ought to have considered the application for leave to defend filed on behalf of the petitioner on merits and by not doing so the Court below had adopted hyper technical approach which was unsustainable and hence, the impugned orders deserved to be set aside.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions of the Oaths Act 1969, particularly, Section 7 thereof, to claim that in the present case only an irregularity had been committed by the petitioner, which stood cured by the affidavit dated 20/08/2019 placed on record. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderjeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 706 and judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay S. Machindar vs. Puneet Jitendra Sejpal and others, reported in (2018) Mh.L.J.406.

9. Per contra Mr. R.D.Dhande, Advocate h/f. Mr.M. A. Gadge/Mr. Mahesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had failed to abide by the mandatory requirements of Section 43(4)(a) of the aforesaid Act and that therefore, the Court below was justified in passing the impugned orders. The learned counsel relied upon judgment in the case of Prakash H. Jain vs. Marie Fernandes, reported in 2003 (8) SCC 431, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the very same provision i.e. Section 43(4)(a) of the aforesaid Act. By relying upon the said judgment, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was categorically held that the Competent Authority under the said Act i.e. Court below was a statutory authority created for a definite purpose and to exercise powers in a quasi-judicial manner and that its powers were strictly circumscribed by the very statutory provisions of the Act. On this basis, it was submitted that since the petitioner in the present case failed to file affidavit within 30 days of service of summons, no error could be attributed to the impugned orders passed by the Court below. It was submitted that filing of mere application signed by the counsel for the petitioner within 30 days of service of summons, seeking leave to defend, was not sufficient and that it did not satisfy the mandatory requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act. It was further submitted that the affidavit filed on 20/08/2019, much beyond the period of 30 days from service of summons purportedly in support of the application for leave to defend, could not cure the fundamental defect that had occurred in the present case. It was submitted that the petitioner was not justified in stating that the Court below had adopted hyper technical approach, because the requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act was strict and mandatory. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra B. Agarwal vs. AML Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2010(1) Mh.L.J. 223, in support of the said submission. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondents, by placing reliance of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U.P. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 734, that the Advocate for the petitioner did not have any locus standi to file the application for leave to defend and that therefore, it was clear that the petitioner had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act. On this basis, it was submitted that writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material on record. Before considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant portions of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash H. Jain vs. Marie Fernandes (supra). Upon discussing the nature of Competent Authority and the Court created under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-

“12. The provisions of Chapter VIII stand apart, distinctly and divorced from the rest of the Act, except to the extent indicated therein itself and for that matter has been given overriding effect over any other provisions in the very act or any other law for the time being in force, though for enforcement of other remedies or even similar remedies under the provisions other than Chapter VIII, altogether different procedure has been provided for. It is unnecessary to once over again refer to the special procedure provided for in Chapter VIII, but the various provisions under Chapter VIII unmistakably indicate that the competent authority constituted thereunder is not 'Court' and the mere fact that such authority is deemed to be Court only for limited and specific purposes, cannot make it a Court for all or any other purpose and at any rate for the purpose of either making the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 attracted to proceedings before such Competent Authority or clothe such authority with any power to be exercised under the Limitation Act. It is by now well settled by innumerable judgments of various Courts including this Court, that when a statute enacts that anything shall be deemed to be some other thing the only meaning possible is that whereas that the said thing is not in reality that something, the legislative enactment requires it to be treated as if it is so. Similarly, though full effect must be given to the legal fiction, it should not be extended beyond the purpose for which the fiction has been created and all the more, when the deeming clause itself confines, as in the present case, the creation of fiction for only a limited purpose as indicated therein. Consequently, under the very scheme of provisions enacted in Chapter VIII of the Act and the avowed legislative purpose obviously made known patently by those very provisions, the Competent Authority can by no means be said to be 'Court' for any and every purpose and that too for availing of or exercising powers under the Limitation Act, 1963.

13. The Competent Authority constituted under and for the purposes of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Act is merely and at best a statutory authority created for a definite purpose and to exercise, no doubt, powers in a quasi-judicial manner but its powers are strictly circumscribed by the very statutory provisions which conferred upon it those powers and the same could be exercised in the manner provided therefor and subject to such conditions and limitations stipulated by the very provision of law under which the Competent Authority itself has been created. Clause (a) of subsection (4) of Section 43 mandates that the tenant or licensee on whom the summons is duly served should contest the prayer for eviction by filing, within thirty days of service of summons on him, an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtain the leave of the Competent Authority to contest the application for eviction as provided therefor. The legislature further proceeds to also provide statutorily the consequences as well laying down that in default of his appearance pursuant to the summons or obtaining such leave, by filing an application for the purpose within the stipulated period, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant or licensee, as the case may be, and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground so stated by him in his application for eviction. It is only when leave has been sought for and obtained in the manner stipulated in the statute that an hearing is envisaged to be commenced and completed once again within the stipulated time. The net result of an application/affidavit with grounds of defence and leave to contest, not having been filed within the time as has been stipulated in the statute itself as a condition precedent for the Competent Authority to proceed further to enquire into the merits of the defence, the Competent Authority is obliged, under the constraining influence of the compulsion statutorily cast upon it, to pass orders of eviction in the manner envisaged in clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the Act. The order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court under challenge in this appeal is well merited and does not call for any interference in our hands.”

11. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that leave to defend could be considered under the provisions of the said Act, only when leave was sought for in the manner stipulated in the statute. It was also categorically held that the Competent Authority i.e. the Court below was a creature of the statute and that its powers were strictly circumscribed by the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Therefore, it becomes abundantly clear that Section 43 placed in Chapter VIII of the said Act has to be construed strictly. It is for this very reason that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment in the case of Prakash H. Jain vs. Marie Fernandes (supra) held that the Competent Authority i.e. the Court below had no power to condone delay in filing of an affidavit seeking leave to defend, as contemplated under Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act, if it was filed beyond the period of 30 days from service of summons.

12. In the present case, it is an admitted position on record that no affidavit was filed by the petitioner before the Court below within 30 days of service of summons for seeking leave to defend. In the application for eviction filed by the respondents, an application signed by the counsel for the petitioner was filed before the Court below on 10/12/2018, stating the facts on the basis of which the petitioner sought leave to defend. This application was rejected by the Court below by order dated 22/07/2019, specifically on the ground that it was not an affidavit, as contemplated under the mandatory requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the aforesaid Act.

13. It was only thereafter, that on 20/08/2019, the petitioner filed an affidavit before the Court below, claiming that it was an affidavit in support of the application for leave to defend already placed on record of the Court below. This affidavit was clearly well beyond the period of 30 days from service of summons on the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner also filed an application for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 22/07/2019, passed by the Court below.

14. Thus, it is clear from the facts of the present case that affidavit of the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act, was not filed within the mandatory period of 30 days from the service of summons. The question is, whether the petitioner is justified in claiming that the application filed by the counsel for the petitioner under his own signature within 30 days of service of summons, satisfied the requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act. The further question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the petitioner can claim that an affidavit filed well beyond mandatory period of 30 days from service of summons, purportedly in support of the application filed by the counsel which already stood dismissed by order dated 22/07/2019, satisfied the requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act.

15. As noted above, it has been specifically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case of Prakash H. Jain vs. Marie Fernandes (supra) that the requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act is mandatory in nature. In the present case, the application filed by the counsel under his signature seeking leave to contest the application for eviction by stating certain grounds, in the absence of any affidavit of the petitioner raising such grounds, cannot be said to have satisfied the mandatory requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act. Even if such an application bearing the signature of only the counsel for the petitioner was filed within 30 days of the service of summons, it was still did not satisfy the strict requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act. This is because the Court below is a creature of the statute under which the petitioner can seek leave only in the manner specifically stipulated under Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act.

16. Insofar as the affidavit dated 20/08/2019 is concerned, it was clearly filed well beyond the mandatory period of 30 days and delay in filing the affidavit could certainly not be condoned, as specifically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash H. Jain vs. Marie Fernandes (supra).

17. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, in both the judgments in the case of Inderjeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh, (supra) and Vijay S. Machindar vs. Puneet Jitendra Sejpal and others, (supra), there could not be any quarrel with the proposition laid down therein to the effect that the Competent Authority i.e. the Court below is not entitled to adjudicate upon the merits or demerits of the grounds sought to be raised by the defendant at the stage of deciding whether leave is to be granted or not. The ratio of the said judgments is not relevant for the present case, because the petitioner herein is first required to satisfy the Court as to whether an affidavit, as contemplated under Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act stating grounds for contesting the application for eviction, was indeed filed within 30 days of service of summons. Since in the present case, the petitioner has failed to do so, the consequence provided under the provisions of the said Act would follow.

18. As noted above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has correctly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash H. Jain vs. Marie Fernandes (supra), because the Court in the said Judgment has specifically held that once an application is filed by the lice

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nsor under Section 24 of the Act, it has to be decided in terms of Chapter VIII of the Act, because Section 39 thereof gives overriding effect to the provisions of Chapter VIII. The reliance placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U. P. (supra), on behalf of the petitioner is also relevant in the present case, because it has been specifically laid down that an Advocate cannot initiate the proceeding on behalf his client unless he is affected person, thereby showing that mere filing of application by the counsel for petitioner in the present case, seeking leave to defend in the absence of any affidavit of petitioner was not sustainable. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Baljeet Singh vs. Pratap Singh and others, reported in AIR 2017 Allahabad 165, wherein it has been laid down that an Advocate filing affidavit on behalf of the client swearing to facts which concern only the client amounts to professional misconduct. But, the said judgment is not relevant for the controversy in the present case, because the counsel for the petitioner in the present case filed only an application under his signature, but he did not swear an affidavit. 19. Insofar as reliance on section 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969, is concerned, which pertains to irregularity in oath or an affirmation, the same is not relevant for the controversy in the present case, because the Court in the present case is concerned with the question as to whether an affidavit of the petitioner was on record in terms of section 43(4)(a) of the said Act, before the Court below within 30 days of service of summons. Since admittedly there was no affidavit on record, there is no question of any irregularity or otherwise. 20. In the light of the above, this Court finds that no error was committed by the Court below by passing the impugned order dated 22/07/2019, whereby the application filed only under the signature of the counsel for the petitioner was rejected and thereafter, the order dated 23/09/2019, whereby the application for setting aside the order dated 22/07/2019 was also rejected. Therefore, it is found that there is no merit in the present writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

07-10-2020 Amit Sahni Versus Commissioner of Police & Others Supreme Court of India
29-09-2020 State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Versus Amit Shrivas Supreme Court of India
23-09-2020 Charu Sharma & Others Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Maharshtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-09-2020 Heer A. Rajani, Rep. by her Power of Attorney Amit M. Rajani Versus M.M. Syed Sikkander, Proprietor: M/s. Syed Bearing Centre, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Arun Sharma Versus Roxann Sharma In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
08-09-2020 Arun Kumar Sharma Versus Adesh Goel & Others High Court of Delhi
07-09-2020 Suneeta Sharma Versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Punjab & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Kumar Versus C.B.I. High Court of Delhi
26-08-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nand Kishore Sharma & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
25-08-2020 Abhishek Sharma @ Chanchal Pandit Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-08-2020 Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Gauhati
24-08-2020 ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Through Manager, Rajasthan Versus Ram Prakash Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 H.N. Sharma & Anr versus Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2020 Nipun Sharma Versus Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
14-08-2020 Union of India & Another Versus M/s. K.C. Sharma & Co. & Others Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 V.P. Sharma & Others Versus Dr. G.S. Kochar Surgeon Urologist) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma V/S Rakesh Sharma and Others. Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Supreme Court of India
07-08-2020 Vijay Ramswarup Sharma Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
06-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Kailash Chand Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-07-2020 Amit Satpal Vijan Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Station House Officer, Central Police Station, Ernakulam District, Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
27-07-2020 Manish Sharma & Another Versus Urmila Arora High Court of Delhi
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-07-2020 Amit Kumar @ Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Singh Versus State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
25-06-2020 Amit Kumar Sinha Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
24-06-2020 Tara Prasad Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
23-06-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Through The General Manager & Another Versus Narendra Kumar Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-06-2020 Ashok Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
17-06-2020 Aman Sharma Versus The Chief Election Commissioner & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
15-06-2020 Rajan Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
02-06-2020 Prateek Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
30-05-2020 Kshitiz Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
19-05-2020 Mukesh Sharma Versus C.V. Ramana High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-05-2020 Randhir Rambrij Sharma Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
06-05-2020 Amit Malviya Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
06-05-2020 Kamla Sharma Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Rakhi Paul Versus Sri Amit Paul High Court of Gauhati
29-04-2020 Anurag Sarmah @ Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
22-04-2020 Anand Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
21-04-2020 For the Appellants: Amit Saxena (Senior Advocate) assisted by Abhishek Srivastava, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ajit Kumar, Punit Khare, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-04-2020 Dr. Mahesh Sharma & Another Versus Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Rajasthan
15-04-2020 Sanjeev Sharma Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
13-04-2020 Amit Dwivedi Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
13-04-2020 Mamta Sharma & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Mohmmad Yunus Versus Madho Prasad Sharma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
30-03-2020 Prashant Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
23-03-2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others Versus Megha Sharma & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-03-2020 Anju Sharma Versus Sunita Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
18-03-2020 Shambhu Prasad Sharma Advocate Versus Renu Jogi High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 Saurav Sharma Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
17-03-2020 Aashu Pandit @ Aashu Bajpai @ Aash Narayan Sharma Versus Union of India High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
16-03-2020 N. Amit Reddy & Another Versus Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
13-03-2020 Unnati Bhardwaj & Another Versus K.P. Sharma High Court of Delhi
11-03-2020 Ajay Sharma & Others Versus Kulwant Singh High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Rampal Sharma & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
05-03-2020 M/s. N.K. Enterprise, West Bengal & Another V/S Narayan Prasad Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-03-2020 Sancha Bahadur Subba Versus Ramesh Sharma High Court of Sikkim
04-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Sharma Versus Nirmaldas Manikpuri High Court of Chhattisgarh
02-03-2020 M/s. Binjusaria Ispat Private Limited Versus Amit Kumar Agarwal High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-02-2020 Dilip Kumar Sharma Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
28-02-2020 Amit V/S State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
28-02-2020 Amit Singh @ Amit & Others Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
24-02-2020 Anita Versus Amit High Court of Delhi
24-02-2020 Sarwan Kumar Sharma Versus Ranjana Sharma @ Ranjana Rani & Another High Court of Delhi
24-02-2020 H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji Versus Amit Roy High Court of Karnataka
20-02-2020 Amit Sehrawat @ Lamba V/S State High Court of Delhi
19-02-2020 Bhupendra Sharma & Others Versus Union of India, Represented By The Secretary Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
18-02-2020 ICICI Bank Ltd., Rajashtan & Others Versus Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 Ram Prakash Sharma Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-02-2020 Vinay Sharma Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 Harinarayan Sharma Versus Vijay Kumar Soni National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2020 Umesh Chand Sharma & Others Versus Parsvnath Developers Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2020 Amit Kishan Bagade & Others Versus Bombay Environmental Action Group & Others Supreme Court of India
12-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Lucknow, U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-02-2020 Amit Kumar Versus State of H.P. & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
11-02-2020 Shashibala M. Sharma Versus ICICI Bank Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-02-2020 Brahmacharimayum Achou Sharma & Others Versus The State of Manipur through the Chief Secretary-cum-Secretary (Power), Govt. of Manipur & Others High Court of Manipur
10-02-2020 Mukulika Sharma & Others Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-02-2020 Kanwar Pal Sharma Versus State (NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 Vipin Sharma Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
06-02-2020 Nitin Sharma Versus State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 Union of India & Another Versus Vinay Sharma & Others High Court of Delhi
04-02-2020 Shubhash Kumar Sharma Versus Harish Chander Rawal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-02-2020 Puroshattam Sharma Versus Executive Engineer, Gwalior North M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
03-02-2020 Axis Bank Limited V/S Ravindra Kumar Sharma and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
30-01-2020 Amit Kumar Mishra Versus The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi & Another) High Court of Delhi
30-01-2020 Veena Rani & Others Versus Purshottam Dass Sharma & Others High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 Shivam Sharma Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
27-01-2020 M/s. CNA Exports (P) Ltd. Versus Mansi Sharma & Others High Court of Delhi
27-01-2020 Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mullanpur & Another Versus Sheshpal Sharma & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India
23-01-2020 Archna Sharma Versus Sudheer Sharma High Court of Rajasthan
22-01-2020 M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Tadepallygudem Versus V. Narahari Sharma & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana