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



Arjun Dayal Jaiswal v/s Anil Kumar


Company & Directors' Information:- ANIL LIMITED [Under Liquidation] CIN = L15490GJ1993PLC019895

Company & Directors' Information:- R ANIL & COMPANY LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U17119WB1991PLC051078

Company & Directors' Information:- ANIL (INDIA) PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201WB1983PTC036608

Company & Directors' Information:- A. KUMAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19201UP1995PTC018833

Company & Directors' Information:- S KUMAR & CO PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909WB1946PTC014540

Company & Directors' Information:- S KUMAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U45203DL1964PTC117149

Company & Directors' Information:- KUMAR (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1986PTC041038

Company & Directors' Information:- ANIL AND COMPANY PRIVATE LTD. [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC024408

Company & Directors' Information:- P KUMAR & CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105WB1998PTC087242

Company & Directors' Information:- ANIL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH1943PTC003911

Company & Directors' Information:- M KUMAR AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1982PTC014823

    Civil Revision 1684 Of 2004

    Decided On, 13 April 2006

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

    For the Appearing Parties: ------------



Judgment Text

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.

(1.) This civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act by the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted from a shop premises measuring 10 feet / 7 feet on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of the landlord as envisaged under Section 11(C) of the Act. The Trial Court has considered in detail the evidences and come to a clear finding that the bonafide necessity of the plaintiff-landlord has been established as by law required and he has considered the question of partial eviction and taken into account the nature of business that the plaintiff intends and the area of the premises in question held that partial eviction will not subserve the purpose of the plaintiff. Thus the suit was decreed. There be(sic)no appeal provided under the Act, the present revision application in terms of Section 14(8) of the Act has been filed.

(2.) Sri Parmeshwar Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant-petitioner has primarily raised, three issues:

(i) In. a proceeding instituted earlier by the father of the plaintiff for eviction of the petitioner on ground of personal necessity of setting up plaintiff in business having been rejected, applying principles of res judicata the present: suit would be barred. (ii) The Plaintiff-Opposite Party had a vacant shop at the time when the present suit was filed which could be occupied for his business but in stead he let it out on rent and choose to take this proceeding against the petitioner which establishes that, infact, the attempt was only to vacate and thus the plea of bonafide necessity was fanciful and bogus, (iii) The Court has not correctly appreciated and applied the concept of partial eviction.

(3.) The submission of the, learned Counsel is that in view of the aforesaid the suit ought to have been dismissed, if not the petitioner ought to be only partially evicted.

(4.) On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the landlord has submitted that when the father had filed the suit for eviction in the year 1987 for setting him up in business he was only about 24 years unmarried but now he is about 34 years married with children and has his own requirements to carry on business independently. Relying on AIR 1988 Supreme Court page 1349, it is submitted that the principles of res judicata will not apply as it is well settled that the requirements is to be judged on the day when the application is made and the law is not that once it is held that there is no personal necessity thus never in future can that be. a ground for eviction.

(5.) Secondly, it is submitted that so far as putting a vacant. shop on rent prior to filing of suit is concerned the issue cannot be raised inasmuch as the plaintiff who appeared as his own witness was not. questioned in this regard nor, any evidence led in this regard by the defendant tenant and that being so this question of fact, not having been established or solicited through evidence cannot be a ground and lastly so far as the partial eviction is concerned the very measure of the shop being 10 feet by 7 feet shows that any division thereof would make it inadequate for his cloth business.

(6.) Having considered the. various submissions I find that the revision application is fit to be dismissed on merits, The facts are not in dispute. The father of the plaintiff had filed a eviction suit in the year 1986 being Eviction Suit No. 36 of 1986. One of the grounds was of personal necessity for setting up his own son in a separate business, this was not accepted by the trial Court which led to dismiss the suit by judgement dated 18.7.1987 and the same was not interfered with and the appeal was dismissed on 7.7.1989. It is almost 10 years thereafter that a partition suit was filed in which the parties compromised and on the basis of compromise decree properties belonging to family of the plaintiff was partitioned in the year 1998. It is now not in dispute that the plaintiff was allotted separate share and he was alloted two shops one of which is occupied by the petitioner. In view of this it is wrong to submit or suggest that partition was a devise to get over the earlier judgment and seek eviction, there was a gap of almost 10 years between the two proceedings.

(7.) Principles of res judicata clearly predicates that parties must be the same and the issues must be the same. In the case like present, parties are different, issues are different. Earlier it was the father intending to set up his own son in business and now the said son having grown up in the last ten years and having separated, wanting to set up his own independent business. Moreover as has been held by the Apex Court in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1349 paragraph 8 that in such cases the principles of res judicata has no application as the need has to be judged on the day when applications for eviction are filed, the needs may change, situations may change. A decision once rendered on personal necessity cannot bind the parties ad infinitum. In view of the aforesaid the first submission of Mr. Parmeshwar Prasad cannot be accepted.

(8.) So far as the second submissions with regard to the premises being vacant is concerned I have perused the evidence and in particular the deposition of the plaintiff who had. examined himself as his witness in which no suggestion was made to him in his cross examination of the fact that there was another premises vacant shop adjacent which had been let out when the suit was filed. No further evidence to support this has been brought on record. In absence of any evidence in support of the assertion the said ground cannot be permitted to be agitated and I reject accordingly.

(9.) Lastly coming to the question of partial eviction the trial Court has considered the fact that the shop premises is only 10 feet by 7 feet. The landlord-plaintiff intends to set up a cloth shop. He was earlier working with his father. He now has separated. On his behalf it is submitted that if a shop of 10 feet by 7 feet is cut by half in either way it will become useless for his business. Equities have to be balanced, the tenant is not to survive at the cost of the landlord only and the tenant can be evicted from the premises of the landlord. Here in the present case the very purpose of eviction fail if partial eviction is ordered. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial court rightly decided that issue against the petitioner-tenant.

(10.) However, I may point out that in case, the landlord does not himself occupy the premises or let. out the premises in contravention to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, the petitioner will be at liberty to take suitable steps as envisaged under Section 17 of the Act.

(11.) Thus in view of the findings above this application is dismissed but no order as to costs.

1. This civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act by the tenant who has been ordered to be evicted from a shop premises measuring 10 feet / 7 feet on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of the landlord as envisaged under Section 11(C) of the Act. The Trial Court has considered in detail the evidences and come to a clear finding that the bonafide necessity of the plaintiff-landlord has been established as by law required and he has considered the question of partial eviction and taken into account the nature of business that the plaintiff intends and the area of the premises in question held that partial eviction will not subserve the purpose of the plaintiff. Thus the suit was decreed. There be(sic)no appeal provided under the Act, the present revision application in terms of Section 14(8) of the Act has been filed.

2. Sri Parmeshwar Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant-petitioner has primarily raised, three issues: (i) In. a proceeding instituted earlier by the father of the plaintiff for eviction of the petitioner on ground of personal necessity of setting up plaintiff in business having been rejected, applying principles of res judicata the present: suit would be barred. (ii) The Plaintiff-Opposite Party had a vacant shop at the time when the present suit was filed which could be occupied for his business but in stead he let it out on rent and choose to take this proceeding against the petitioner which establishes that, infact, the attempt was only to vacate and thus the plea of bonafide necessity was fanciful and bogus, (iii) The Court has not correctly appreciated and applied the concept of partial eviction.

3. The submission of the, learned Counsel is that in view of the aforesaid the suit ought to have been dismissed, if not the petitioner ought to be only partially evicted.

4. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the landlord has submitted that when the father had filed the suit for eviction in the year 1987 for setting him up in business he was only about 24 years unmarried but now he is about 34 years married with children and has his own requirements to carry on business independently. Relying on AIR 1988 Supreme Court page 1349, it is submitted that the principles of res judicata will not apply as it is well settled that the requirements is to be judged on the day when the application is made and the law is not that once it is held that there is no personal necessity thus never in future can that be. a ground for eviction.

5. Secondly, it is submitted that so far as putting a vacant. shop on rent prior to filing of suit is concerned the issue cannot be raised inasmuch as the plaintiff who appeared as his own witness was not. questioned in this regard nor, any evidence led in this regard by the defendant tenant and that being so this question of fact, not having been established or solicited through evidence cannot be a ground and lastly so far as the partial eviction is concerned the very measure of the shop being 10 feet by 7 feet shows that any division thereof would make it inadequate for his cloth business.

6. Having considered the. various submissions I find that the revision application is fit to be dismissed on merits, The facts are not in dispute. The father of the plaintiff had filed a eviction suit in the year 1986 being Eviction Suit No. 36 of 1986. One of the grounds was of personal necessity for setting up his own son in a separate business, this was not accepted by the trial Court which led to dismiss the suit by judgement dated 18.7.1987 and the same was not interfered with and the appeal was dismissed on 7.7.1989. It is almost 10 years thereafter that a partition suit was filed in which the parties compromised and on the basis of compromise decree properties belonging to family of the plaintiff was partitioned in the year 1998. It is now not in dispute that the plaintiff was allotted separate share and he was alloted two shops one of which is occupied by the petitioner. In view of this it is wrong to submit or suggest that partition was a devise to get over the earlier judgment and seek eviction, there was a gap of almost 10 years between the two proceedings.

7. Principles of res judicata clearly predicates that parties must be the same and the issues must be the same. In the case like present, parties are different, issues are different. Earlier it was the father intending to set up his own son in business and now the said son having grown up in the last ten years and having separated, wanting to set up his own independent business. Moreover as has been held by the Apex Court in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1349 paragraph 8 that in such cases the principles of res judicata has no application as the need has to be judged on the day when applications for eviction are filed, the needs may change, situations may change. A decision once rendered on personal necessity cannot bind the parties ad infinitum. In view of the aforesaid the first submission of Mr. Parmeshwar Prasad cannot be accepted.

8. So far as the second submissions with regard to the premises being vacant is concerned I have perused the evidence and in particular the deposition of the plaintiff who had. examined himself as his witness in which no suggestion was made to him in his cross examination of the fact that there was another premises vacant shop adj

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

acent which had been let out when the suit was filed. No further evidence to support this has been brought on record. In absence of any evidence in support of the assertion the said ground cannot be permitted to be agitated and I reject accordingly. 9. Lastly coming to the question of partial eviction the trial Court has considered the fact that the shop premises is only 10 feet by 7 feet. The landlord-plaintiff intends to set up a cloth shop. He was earlier working with his father. He now has separated. On his behalf it is submitted that if a shop of 10 feet by 7 feet is cut by half in either way it will become useless for his business. Equities have to be balanced, the tenant is not to survive at the cost of the landlord only and the tenant can be evicted from the premises of the landlord. Here in the present case the very purpose of eviction fail if partial eviction is ordered. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial court rightly decided that issue against the petitioner-tenant. 10. However, I may point out that in case, the landlord does not himself occupy the premises or let. out the premises in contravention to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, the petitioner will be at liberty to take suitable steps as envisaged under Section 17 of the Act. Thus in view of the findings above this application is dismissed but no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

26-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar & Others Versus Raj Kumar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-05-2020 Suneet Kumar Versus Krishna Kumar Agarwal High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
23-05-2020 Pradeep Kumar Bhatia Versus Paramjit Kaur Paintal High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 Santosh Kumar Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-05-2020 Kundan Kumar Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
21-05-2020 Dr. Anil Dhalla Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
21-05-2020 Binay Kumar Mishra Versus The Director (R.P. Cell), Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Others High Court of Delhi
20-05-2020 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Nilesh Mahendra Kumar Gandhi & Another Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Check of Accounts) & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 Sunil Kumar Aledia Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
20-05-2020 Mohit Kumar & Another Versus Ashok Kumar Tiwari & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
20-05-2020 Anil Chamadia Versus The Chairman Media Advisory Committee Rajya Sabha & Others High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 Anil Mittal Versus State (NCT of Delhi) & Others High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 Baglekar Akash Kumar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-05-2020 Ravindra Kumar Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-05-2020 Dheeraj Kumar & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
14-05-2020 Manish Kumar Yadav & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-05-2020 Swapan Kumar Saha Versus Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-05-2020 Shiv Prasad Singh Versus Nageshwar Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Kumar Bimal Prasad Singh & Others Versus Hare Ram Singh & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Mohomed Saleem Versus R. Senthil Kumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-05-2020 Anil Kumar @ Anil Versus State by Kodigehalli Police Station, Rep. by its Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
11-05-2020 M. Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by the State Police Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
11-05-2020 Pawan Kumar & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-05-2020 Gauri Shankar Versus Rakesh Kumar & Others High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 Virendra Kumar Versus Vijay Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-05-2020 Vijay Kumar Agrahari Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
06-05-2020 The State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Sanjeev Kumar Chawla High Court of Delhi
06-05-2020 Sunder Kumar & Others Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
01-05-2020 Anil K. Aggarwal, Advocate & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
01-05-2020 Jitender Kumar @ Rajan Versus Kamlesh High Court of Delhi
01-05-2020 Manish Kumar Mishra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-04-2020 Romesh Kumar Bajaj Versus Delhi Development Authority High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State of GNCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
27-04-2020 Sunder Kumar & Others Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
24-04-2020 Sahil Kumar Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
24-04-2020 Lingam Anil Kumar Versus Sowmya Lingam High Court of Andhra Pradesh
24-04-2020 Naresh Kumar Versus Director of Education & Another High Court of Delhi
22-04-2020 Devender Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
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
21-04-2020 Mahadeo Construction Co. at Chhatarpur, Palamau Through its partner Anil Kumar Singh Versus The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
20-04-2020 Pradip Kumar Maji Versus Coal India Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-04-2020 Aman Kumar Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-04-2020 Aman Kumar Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-04-2020 Manoj Kumar Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-04-2020 T. Ganesh Kumar Versus Union of India Represented by Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 Ramjit Singh Kardam & Others Versus Sanjeev Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 India Awake for Transparency, Rep. by its Director, Rajender Kumar Versus The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-04-2020 B. Ravi Kumar Reddy & Another Versus Bhagyamma & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-04-2020 Gaurav Kumar Bansal Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Suchitra Kumar Singha Roy Versus Arpita Singha Roy High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-03-2020 State Versus Krishan Kumar High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Akshay Kumar Singh Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta Versus State of N.C.T. of Delhi Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta & Others Versus State High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 R. Raghavan, Partner of Dinamalar Group, Dinamalar (RF) New Standard Press Annex, Trichy & Others Versus Educomp Solutions Ltd, Through its Senior Manager Nithish Kumar & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-03-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Bikram Kumar Jaiswal West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-03-2020 Mukesh Hyundai Versus Ankur Kumar Roy National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Surendra Kumar Versus Phulwanti Devi High Court of Rajasthan
18-03-2020 Amar Kumar Saraswat Versus M/s. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Dr. Ajay Kumar Versus Indu Bala Mishra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Praveen Kumar Versus M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-03-2020 Subodh Kumar & Others Versus Commissioner of Police & Others Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Others Versus Anil Padegaonkar & Others Supreme Court of India
16-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Malay Kumar Majumder & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Kuldeep Kumar & Others Versus Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
16-03-2020 Munna Kumar Singh Versus State of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Dalip Kumar & Others Versus State of Delhi High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Vijay Kumar Singh Versus Rana Cooperative Housing Society & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Sunil Kumar Mishra Versus State High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
11-03-2020 Fiitjee Ltd., Through Its A.R Sh. Ashish Kr. Aggarwal, New Delhi & Another Versus Puneet Garg (Minor) Through His Natural Guardian His Father Sh. Anil Kuamr, Barnala National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 M/s. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, R. Kirlosh Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 Kishore Kumar & Another Versus The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - I, EDF-III, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Amar Kumar Paikra Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
06-03-2020 South Eastern Coalfields Limited Versus Ashok Kumar Thakur High Court of Chhattisgarh
06-03-2020 Pankaj Kumar Singh Versus National Thermal Power Corp Ltd. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
05-03-2020 Dilip Kumar Jatkar Versus Jayasree Jatkar High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-03-2020 Shantanu Kumar & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
05-03-2020 Pardeep Kumar Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
05-03-2020 Gunjan Kumar Versus Management of Circle Head Punjab National Bank, Darbhanga & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-03-2020 Pradip Kumar Chaudhuri Versus M/s. Dagcon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Through its Resolution Professional Bimal Agarwal & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 Uttam Kumar @ Tillu Versus State of MP High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-03-2020 The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruvannamalai Versus Suresh Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Dr. Anil D. Garje Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Higher & Technical Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Kiki Doma Bhutia Versus Bijendra Kumar Singh High Court of Sikkim
04-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Sharma Versus Nirmaldas Manikpuri High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Another Versus M/s. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust & Others Supreme Court of India
03-03-2020 Dr. Bussa Ramesh Kumar Versus The State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-03-2020 In The Matter of:D & I Taxcon Services Private Limited Versus Vinod Kumar Kothari, Liquidator of Nicco Corporation Limited National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
03-03-2020 M.K. Santhosh Kumar & Another Versus The Federal Bank Ltd., Represented by Chief Mnager & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-03-2020 Leon Thomas Kumar @ Layon Thomas Kumar Versus Mariam Sayanora Thomas High Court of Kerala
03-03-2020 Subir Kumar Sett Versus The Managing Director, Woods Laboratories Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
02-03-2020 M/s. Binjusaria Ispat Private Limited Versus Amit Kumar Agarwal High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-03-2020 V. Chakradhar Reddy & Others Versus G. Raveen Kumar & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-03-2020 Gateway Distriparks Limited & Another Versus Ranjiv Kumar Bhasin High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-03-2020 Rasheed Ali Khan, Hyd Versus Jitender Kumar Guptha, Rep. By P.P. & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box