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



Arun Kumar Sharma v/s Adesh Goel & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- GOEL & GOEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29309PB2019PTC050463

Company & Directors' Information:- GOEL AND COMPANY LTD [Active] CIN = U67120DL1997PLC090621

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

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:- 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:- K P SHARMA (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1988PTC045569

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- KUMAR L P G PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U23201DL2001PTC113203

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

Company & Directors' Information:- GOEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1973PTC016518

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

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- B N KUMAR & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52341WB1941PTC010643

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- ARUN AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U20239MH1989PTC054510

    Crl.M.C. No. 1772 of 2020 & Crl.M.A. No. 12376 of 2020

    Decided On, 08 September 2020

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

    For the Petitioner: Priyanka Garg, Advocate. For the Respondents: None.



Judgment Text


Judgment (Oral)

Crl. M.A.12377 /2020 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 1772/2020

3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to set aside and quash the order dated 29.08.2020 passed by Ld.M.M.-04 (N.I.Act)/South-East, New Delhi in complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide CT Cases/3007/2014 titled as Adesh Goel Vs. M/s. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by petitioner/accused no.3 for recall of complainant for further cross examination was dismissed. Further seeks direction thereby to allow the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by petitioner/accused no.3 for recall of complainant for further cross examination.

4. The Respondent No.1/Complainant after examining his witnesses, filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C on 2l.07.2015 for recalling the witnesses, however, allowed by the Trial Court on 20.01.2016. Further, another application u/s 311 was filed by complainant on 29.03.2016 for recalling of CW-8 and the same was also dismissed.

5. On 13.07.2016, while the Petitioner/ Accused No. 3 was cross examining the complainant, however, the Trial Court directed to complete the cross-examination of witness stating that the sufficient time has been given, consequently, several material and necessary questions were left in haste and could not be put to the complainant by Petitioner / Accused No. 3 to his prejudice. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1/Complainant closed the complainant evidence.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that after closing of complainant evidence, the said complainant, filed list of documents dated 14.12.2016 alongwith documents and the same were taken on record by the Trial Court. In addition to above, Respondent No.1/Complainant filed an application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C, after closing of complainant evidence, upon which arguments of both parties were heard by the Trial Court on 14.12.2016. But the Trial Court vide order dated 03.05.2017 held that complainant, at this stage, does not wish to press the application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C and the same was withdrawn.

7. Thereafter, the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 was cross examined by Respondent No.1/Complainant at length, however new documents were produced by Respondent No.1/ Complainant, for the first time, before the Trial Court at the stage of defence evidence and were put to the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 and defence witnesses for questions and suggestions. The Trial Court vide order dated 22.05.2019 recorded two such documents viz. appointment letter and Bank Statement for year 2016-17 produced by Respondent No.1/Complainant for the first time at the stage of defence evidence. The new documents which were produced by Respondent No./Complainant for the first time before the Trial Court at the stage of defence evidence and were put to the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 for questions and suggestions under his cross examination are enumerated as below:-

“i. Ex DW1/X1(Colly) - The ITR of the accused (2014-2015).

ii. Ex DW1/X2- Leave to defend application filed by the accused in the civil suit.

iii. Ex DW1/X3 - The letter of offer/appointment of the accused in M/s Zexus air services dated 07.12.2016.

iv. Ex DW1/X4 Account ledger enquiry/Statement of the bank account of the accused showing the salary received by the accused as an employee in the company. It is pertinent to note that his appointment as director in the year 2016 whereas the cheques in question pertain to the year 2014.

v. Ex DWl/X5 - PEN DRIVE placed on record by the complainant alleging that it contains the conversation held between the complainant, accused and accused friends.

vi. Ex DW 1/ X6 - Certificate U / s 65B.

vii. Ex DW 1 /X7 - Translated transcript of recording. It is pertinent to note that no certificate under U/s 65B along with translation was given by complainant, it does not show who translated it and without disclosing how and through which device, the conversation was recorded. The Trial Court has not recorded even during cross examination that which device was played from 17 min 10 sec - 17 min 17 sec in the court except a bare statement with regard to playing of the voice of the accused in the court, even the certificate filed by the complainant speaks about recording of the voice in computer and it states that it is a computer generated record which is very much evident that according to the complainant the voice was recorded in the computer and no original such device has been produced in the court to show the recording and it has never come on record where the said conversation was recorded. viii. Ex DW1/X8 - RTI reply received by the complainant.”

8. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that defence witness, DW-2, Shri R. K. Sharma Ex- Director of M/s. Zexus Air Services, Respondent No.2/Accused No.1 was examined and the following documents were put to him during cross-examination for the first time by Respondent No.1/Complainant before the Trial Court:-

“i. DW2/B-certificate of incorporation;

ii. DW2 I C-RTI reply containing Form 32 and Form 11 alongwith certificate under section 65B Evidence Act;

iii. Ex.DW2/D-ITR for assessment year 2014-15 of Ms. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd.;

iv. Ex.DW2/GNOC in favour of Ms. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd. as available on website of Director General of Civil Aviation;

v. Ex.DW2/H - Criminal case filed against M/s. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd.;

vi. Ex.DW2/I-calls received by him; Ex.DW2/J his profile at Linkedln .

vii. The other documents put to DW2 were not admitted VIZ. Ex.DW2/E-loan and three promissory notes which was part of record of a Civil case filed by the accused, Ex.DW2/F-email purportedly sent by then CMD Mis. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd.”

9. Thereafter, defence witness, DW3, Manager Accounts in Ms. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd. was examined and the following documents were put to him during cross-examination for the first time by Respondent No.1/Complainant before the Trial Court:-

“i. Ex DW3 I DX 2 - DIR 12 of the company.

ii. Ex DW3/DX 3 - MGT-7 of the Company.

iii.ExDW3/DX4, ExDW3/DX4, ExDW3/DX5, ExDW3/DX 6 - company documents.

iv. Ex DW3/DX 7 - Death Certificate of Shri Surender Kumar Kaushik

v. Ex DW3/DX 8 - The passport.

vi. Ex DW3/DX 9- Documents concerning the security clearance of the employees of the company.

vii. Ex DW3/DXI0 - Emails and documents of the company.

Ex DW3/DX 11 - Certificate of the experience of the complainant”

10. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 discovered during the defence evidence (vide Ex.DW2/H) about a complaint vide CT Cases 8423/2017 to initiate criminal proceeding for the offence of cheating filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C by Respondent No.1 /Complainant against Petitioner/Accused No.3 along with other accused persons and notice of which was not served upon Petitioner/Accused No. 3. Learned counsel further submits that Petitioner/Accused No. 3 was, hitherto, unaware of this complaint case against him filed by Respondent No.1 / Complainant.

11. However, the complaint vide CT Case No.8423/2017 to initiate criminal proceeding for the offence of cheating filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C filed by Respondent No.1/Complainant against Petitioner/Accused No.3 along with other accused persons was dismissed on absence of grounds for cheating against Petitioner/Accused No. 3 and other accused persons. Therefore, the Petitioner/Accused No.3, upon discovery of new documents put up by Complainant to the Petitioner, DW -1 and his witnesses at the stage of defence evidence during cross-examination including the complaint vide CT Cases 8423/2017 to initiate criminal proceeding for the offence of cheating filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C by Respondent No.1 /Complainant against Petitioner/ Accused No.3 along with other accused persons. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that learned Trial Court dismissed his application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. ignoring the aforesaid fact and without application of mind.

12. This Court has perused the impugned order dated 29.08.2020 whereby recorded that an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which was filed via email on 20.08.2020 was not forwarded to the complainant side for necessary action. Vide the said application, applicant therein sought 15 days adjournment and from the averments in the application, it was seen that the complaint in CT cases 8423/2017 was filed in 2017 and it was dismissed in 2017 itself. The complainant has admitted that the Ld. MM dismissed the application uncontested at the initial stage for the reason that no prime facie allegations of cheating, etc. were there. Ld. MM was of the opinion that as per allegation only Section 138 N.I. Act complaint was made out and it was already pending (subject matter of present complaint).

13. It is further recorded that prayer sought in the said application for adjournment for 15 days was not warranted for two reasons. Firstly; the complaint was filed in 2017 and dismissed then, yet the accused side including petitioner waited till March 2020 to apply for certified copy of the complaint.

14. Moreover, during arguments, it was admitted by accused side that they came to know about this complaint and dismissal in 2018 itself, yet the question arose before the Trial Court that as to why they waited till 2020, which is not explained. Moreover, the said complaint was dismissed uncontested at initial stage and no opinion as to merits were expressed, thus, there is no evidence in the complaint which needs to be put to the complainant for any further cross examination. At the most, the CT cases 8423/2017 was an unsuccessful attempt by the complainant to initiate a parallel criminal proceedings for cheating against the accused arising out of the same transaction which is subject matter of the present case. Cause of action for both these complaints are different and since nothing was expressed on merits of Section 138 of N.I. Act complaint, any decision in CT Cases 8423/2017 can have no bearing on the merits of the present case. The application dated 20.08.2020 moved via email for the purpose that certified copy of CT Cases 8423/2017 is awaited therefore has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.

15. The main application of the petitioner moved under section 311 Cr.P.C., however, the Ld. M.M. after going through the same opined that the application is vague and there are general averments. The only ground stated is that few documents were put to the defence witnesses which have to be put to the complainant for further cross examination. The petitioner has not specified as to which documents need to be put and how the said is relevant in bringing home the defence of the accused. Ld. M.M. further opined that at this juncture, if the defence of the accused taken at the time of framing notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. is considered, wherein the accused side states that he has substantiated his defence in his application under section 145(2) N.I. Act. The defence raised in the application were that (1) the accused was never a director or employee or in any manner connected with Ms.Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd.; and (2) the accused never approached the complainant to get any job done from the Ministry of Civil Aviation being not related to Ms. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd. and therefore there was no occasion for him to draw the present cheque in question for any liability. It was further defended that the cheque in question was given towards a proposed loan to be given by the accused to the complainant, which was later refused by the accused and the complainant misused the cheque in question.

16. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, learned Trial Court opined that from the records available, this has been a consistent stand/defence of the accused and he has cross-examined the complainant. The present application states that further cross-examination is warranted for new documents which were put by complainant to defence witnesses. Although the accused side made no endeavour to substantiate as to which documents it wishes to put to complainant. Accordingly, Ld. Trial Court further opined that the records shows that DWl/accused during his cross-examination was put 2 old cheque Ex.CW1/1B and Ex.CW1/1C which were admittedly drawn by the accused/DW1. DWl/X1 (Collectively) was admitted as printout of facebook account of the accused/DW1. Ex.DWl/X1 was admitted to be the certified copy ITR of the accused/DW1. Ex.DWl/X2 was admitted to be leave to defend filed by the accused/DW1. Ex.DW1/X3 offer letter and Ex.DWl/X4 account ledger were put the accused/DW1. Ex.DWl/X5, Ex.DWl/X6 and Ex.DWl/X7 that are voice recording, certificate under section 65B Evidence Act and translated transcript, respectively, was placed on record and from those recording voice from 17min:07 sec. to 17min:17sec. put to the accused was admitted by the accused/DW1. Ex.DW1X8 was complaint copy received through RTI which is alleged to have been written by the accused/DW1.

17. In the impugned order, learned Trial Court observed as under:-

“8. Further record shows that DW2 was one of the Director of Ms. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd. from 2013 to 2017 and DW2/A was put to him which was identified as a letter dated 21.06.2015 written by then CMD (since deceased) of Ms. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd. to accused. DW2 admitted the following documents put to him during cross-examination- DW2/B-certificate of incorporation; DW2/C-RTI reply containing Form 32 and Form 11 alongwith certificate under section 65B Evidence Act; Ex.DW2/D-ITR for assessment year 2014-15 of Ms. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd.; Ex.DW2/GNOC in favour of Ms. Zexus Air Services pvt. Ltd. as available on website of Director General of Civil Aviation; Ex.DW2/H-criminal case filed against Ms. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd.; Ex.DW2/I-calls received by him; Ex.DW2/J his profile at LinkedIn. The other documents put to DW2 not admitted were Ex.DW2/E-loan and three promissory note which was part of record of a Civil case filed by the accused; Ex.DW2/F-email purportedly sent by then CMD Ms. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd ..

9. Accused side also called in DW3 in defence who was Manager Accounts in Ms. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd. And all the documents presented by DW3 from Ex.DW3/1 to Ex.DW3/4 i.e. authority letter in favour of DW3, confirmation of loan account, statement of bank account of Ms. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., statement of account showing repayment of loan of Rs.25 Lacs, respectively; and all documents put to DW3 during cross examination from Ex.DW3/X1 to Ex.DW3/X11 that are bank statement, Form No. DIR 12, Form no. MGT7, ITRs, death certificate, passport, NOC, experience certificate were all documents pertaining to accounts or business operation of company Ms. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd. and its then CMD Sh. Suriender Kumar Kaushik.

10. From the records above, it cannot be gathered as to which document the accused side wants to put to the complainant in his further cross-examination. Most of the documents are either admitted by the defence witnesses or pertains to Ms. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd. Be that as it may, accused side despite being given ample opportunities, has failed to explain which document put to any of the defence witness would probably substantiate his defence taken at the time of framing of notice under Section 251 CrPC. The application therefore, for recall of complainant for further cross-examination is completely baseless. From the above discussion, this Court sees no such document which needs to be put to the complainant for further cross-examination, which would substantiate the defence of the accused in the present case. It is a settled principle of law that Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

allowed to fill in any lacunae in the trial or to delay the trial, as was also held in Umar Mohammad & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 14 SCC 711. The application dated 20.08.2020 filed on the email seeking 15 days adjournment as well as application under section 311 Cr.P.C. are hereby dismissed. Nothing expressed in this Order shall have a bearing on the merits of the present case.” 18. In addition to above, learned Trial Court has considered the fact that the complainant is a Senior Citizen and the matter is pending for more than five years. This Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial. Accordingly, Trial Court deemed it appropriate to grant only one opportunity to both the sides to complete their oral arguments. Parties are at liberty to file written submission by 10.09.2020. Ld. Trial Court further clarified that no further adjournment shall be granted. 19. In view of above facts, filing of application at belated stage which does not prejudice to the rights and contention of the petitioner, I am of the view such application is delay tactics to get the trial delayed. 20. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of A.P.: (2012) 7 SCC 56; Venu Madhava K. vs. State (NCT of Delhi): 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12064 and Mannan Shaikh v. State of W.B.: (2014) 13 SCC 59, however, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner are of no help in the present case. 21. Accordingly, I find no illegality and perversity in the impugned order dated 29.08.2020 passed by the Trial Court. 22. In view of above, the petition is dismissed. 23. Pending application also stands disposed of. 24. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

20-10-2020 For the Applicant: Sudeep Kumar, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey, Advocates. For the Respondents: ----------- High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
16-10-2020 M/s. Khushee Construction through its Power of Attorney Holder, namely Shree Rajeev Kumar, District Patna Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-10-2020 Umesh Kumar Sharma Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others Supreme Court of India
15-10-2020 Senior Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Rajesh Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-10-2020 Nitesh Kumar Chaudhary @ Nitesh Kumar Versus The Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-10-2020 Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Limited Versus Piyush Kant Sharma & Others Supreme Court of India
14-10-2020 Veenesh Kumar Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-10-2020 Rajeev Kumar Versus State High Court of Delhi
14-10-2020 SGT Aadesh Kumar Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
12-10-2020 Riddhima Singh Through: Her Father Shailendra Kumar Singh Versus Central Board Of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Delhi
12-10-2020 Mantu Kumar Singh @ Chandr Kant Singh Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
12-10-2020 Naresh Kumar Sinha, Company Secretary, M/s Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Jeevan Bharti, New Delhi & Others Versus Union of India Rep. By The Labour Enforcement Officer Central Tripura West & Another High Court of Gauhati
12-10-2020 Sushil Kumar Pandey & Others Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
12-10-2020 Karan Goel Versus Kanika Goel High Court of Delhi
09-10-2020 Karan Yadav alias Karan Kumar Yadav Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-10-2020 Dr. S. Anand Kumar Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
09-10-2020 K.G. Jijish Kumar Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Others High Court of Kerala
08-10-2020 Gayathri Senthil Kumar Versus The Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality, Kodaikanal Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
08-10-2020 Raja Mahesh Kumar M.E. (Civil-Structural) Versus The Secretary to Govt., Housing & Urban Development Dept., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-10-2020 Sandip Kumar Sinha Versus The State of Bihar & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-10-2020 Deepak Kumar Ganesh Rai Manto Versus State (Through Police Inspector) In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
07-10-2020 Saurav Kumar @ Sahgal Pratap Singh @ Saurav Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-10-2020 V. Sivaraj Versus Senthil Kumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-10-2020 Yathish Kumar @ Yathish Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
07-10-2020 A. Kumar Versus Financial Intelligence Unit – India, New Delhi & Another Versius Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 Kaushal Mishra @ Kaushal Kumar Mishra Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Excise Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-10-2020 R. Kishore Kumar Versus The Chief Inspector of Factories, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M/s. Magma Fincorp Ltd. Versus Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 M/s. Magma Fincorp Ltd. Versus Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 Universal Cables Limited & Others Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-10-2020 Universal Cables Limited & Others Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-10-2020 M/s. Arun Kumar Kamal Kumar & Others Versus M/s. Selected Marble Home & Others Supreme Court of India
30-09-2020 Rohit Kumar Rawat Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
30-09-2020 Ajay Kumar Versus State (NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
30-09-2020 Prem Kumar & Others Versus Abhimanyu Arora High Court of Delhi
30-09-2020 M.L. Ganesh & Others Versus CA V. Venkata Siva Kumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 Anandha Kumar Versus Sathya High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2020 Ashok Kumar Swarnkar Versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-09-2020 Ashok Kumar Swarnkar Versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
23-09-2020 Charu Sharma & Others Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Maharshtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-09-2020 Kumar Versus M.P. Selvaraj & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Akshay Kumar Jaiswal Versus The State of Assam, Rep. By The PP, Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
22-09-2020 P.S. Dilip Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
21-09-2020 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yaduvanshi Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) & Another High Court of Delhi
21-09-2020 Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla & Another Versus National Law School of India University, Bengaluru & Others Supreme Court of India
21-09-2020 Senthil Kumar Versus State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Pasupathypalayam Police Station, Karur Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-09-2020 Krishna Kumar Yadav Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Prohibition and Excise Act, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-09-2020 Arun Sharma Versus Roxann Sharma In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-09-2020 G. Saravana Kumar @ Yeshwanth Versus The State by the Inspector of Police, W-8, All Women Police Station, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Mahendra Kumar Lalan Versus State of M. P. & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
18-09-2020 Priyamvada Devi Birla (Dec.) & Others Versus Ajay Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-09-2020 Manoj Kumar Versus The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Govt. of Bihar Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-09-2020 Atmesh Kumar Roy Versus Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-09-2020 Neetu Kumar Nagaich Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others Supreme Court of India
15-09-2020 P. Bharat Kumar Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 Dinesh Kumar Versus Priyanka & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-09-2020 Sandip Kumar Bajaj & Another Versus State Bank of India & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-09-2020 Naresh Kumar Rai Versus State of Sikkim, Through Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok & Another High Court of Sikkim
10-09-2020 Rajaroop Kumar Nayak @ Bhanti Dhani Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by SPP, Kalaburagi High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
10-09-2020 Pravin Kumar Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
08-09-2020 Dhirendra Kumar Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
08-09-2020 Dhirendra Kumar Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-09-2020 Suneeta Sharma Versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Punjab & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-09-2020 Anthosh Kumar Bavara Versus State of Karnataka by Inspector of Police, Represented by High Court Govt. Pleader, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
07-09-2020 Parveen Kumar Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-09-2020 Inder Kumar Raina Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
04-09-2020 Atul Kumar Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-09-2020 Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus State Public Service Tribunal Thru.Chairman & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
03-09-2020 Jonny @ Anuj Kumar Versus State of U.P High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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
02-09-2020 J.K. White Cement Works, Uttar Pradesh Versus Rajender Kumar & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-09-2020 G. Anand Kumar Bhandari & Another Versus N. Narasimha Murthy & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 G.C. Kishor Kumar Versus Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-09-2020 Kranti Bai & Others Versus Kamlesh Kumar Patel High Court of Chhattisgarh
01-09-2020 Indian National Trust For Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) Patna Chapter, through its Convener Sri Jatindra Kumar Lall, Patna, Bihar Versus The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Patna, Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-09-2020 Kunti Kumar & Another Versus J&K Special Tribunal & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
01-09-2020 K.S. Arvind Kumar Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
31-08-2020 Arun Versus Vinod High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
31-08-2020 Sanjeev Kumar Versus Amarjeet High Court of Delhi
31-08-2020 Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Kumar Versus C.B.I. High Court of Delhi
31-08-2020 T. Mohan Kumar Versus The State of Karnataka by the Station House Officer, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 R. Hemanth Kumar Versus State of Karnataka by Chamarajpet Police, (Represented by Learned State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Mohit Kumar Versus The State of Haryana & Others Supreme Court of India
26-08-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nand Kishore Sharma & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
26-08-2020 Manohar Kumar Gupta Versus Presiding officer, MACT, Jammu & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
26-08-2020 Arun Chettri Versus State of Sikkim Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok & Others High Court of Sikkim
26-08-2020 Ashok Kumar & Another Versus Director/Managing Director, Mahaluxmi Buildtech Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-08-2020 Abhishek Sharma @ Chanchal Pandit Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-08-2020 Shiv Charan Sah @ Shiv Charan Kumar Sah Versus The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
25-08-2020 Sharad Kumar Singh & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-08-2020 Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Gauhati
24-08-2020 B. Sunil Kumar & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Rep. by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
24-08-2020 ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Through Manager, Rajasthan Versus Ram Prakash Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 United Conveyor Corporation (India) Private Limited Versus Pravash Kumar Mukherjee High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-08-2020 M/s. Bollineni Developers Ltd., Represented by its Chairman B. Krishnaiah Versus K. Sailendra Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2020 M/s. Bollineni Developers Ltd., Branch Office at Chennai Represented by its Chairman B. Krishnaiah Versus K. Sailendra Kumar & Others High Court of Rajasthan
21-08-2020 M/s. Bollineni Developers Ltd., Branch Office at Chennai Represented by its Chairman B. Krishnaiah Versus K. Sailendra Kumar & Others High Court of Rajasthan
21-08-2020 Udaya Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Inspector of Police, Thali Police Station, Krishnagiri High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2020 Udaya Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Inspector of Police, Thali Police Station, Krishnagiri High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2020 Arun Kumar Singh & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad