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



Asim Shariff v/s National Investigating Agency, Rep. By Spl. P.P., High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore


Company & Directors' Information:- SPL LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U74999HR1968PLC005169

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

Company & Directors' Information:- SPL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24219DL1998PLC148291

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1917PLC002781

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CORPORATION PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909PB1942PTC000480

Company & Directors' Information:- A. G. AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109DL2008PTC186212

    Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2018

    Decided On, 08 March 2018

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. MUDAGAL

    For the Appellant: S. Balakrishnan, Advocate. For the Respondent: P. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Crl.Appeal is filed under Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 praying to set aside the order Dated 02.01.2018 passed by the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court of Trial of Nia Cases), Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.181/2017 against the appellant and discharge him for the offence P/U/S 302, 201 R/W 34 of IPC and Section 3 And 27 of Indian Arms Act and under Section 15,16,17,18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and from the case.)

B.S. Patil, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short 'the NIA Act') challenging the order dated 02.01.2018 passed by the learned 49th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in his capacity as Special Judge for trial of National Investigation Agency cases at Bengaluru. By the order under challenge the learned Spl.Judge has dismissed the application filed under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure by accused No.5/appellant herein seeking his discharge.

2. It is contended by the appellant in the application filed, that he has been falsely implicated by invoking the provisions of the NIA Act, i.e., Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 without any materials against him so as to attract penal provisions and has been wrongly charge-sheeted. This application was resisted by the State represented by National investigating Police, Bengaluru City. On consideration of the respective contentions, the Court below has dismissed the application.

3. The Office has raised objections regarding maintainability of this appeal. Therefore, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri S. Balakrishnan and learned counsel appearing for the respondent Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, on the said question. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the order under challenge is not an interlocutory order therefore, there is no bar for maintaining the appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act.

4. Per contra, Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order under challenge is an interlocutory order and therefore appeal is not maintainable as per the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 21 of the Act. In support of his contention he relies upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of V.C. Shukla vs. State, through C.B.I., AIR 1980 SCC 92.

5. In the light of respective contentions and in the light of provisions contained in Section 21 of the Act, the question to be considered is:

whether the appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act a Special enactment is maintainable?

Section 21 of the NIA Act is extracted hereunder:

"21. Appeals.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.

(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench of two judges of the High Court and shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal.

(3) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a Special Court.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 378 of the Code, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail.

(5) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from:

Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days:

Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of period of ninety days."

6. It is apparent from a reading of the aforementioned provisions that an appeal is provided from any judgment, sentence or order not being interlocutory order passed by a Special Court to the High Court. Sub section (3) envisages that no appeal or revision shall lie except as provided under sub section 1 to any Court from any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a Special Court.

7. Sub clause (4) provides an appeal to the High Court against the order of Spl. Court granting or refusing bail. It is, therefore, clear that against an interlocutory order passed by a Spl.Court, no appeal or revision lies to any Court. The question for consideration now is whether the order under challenge is an interlocutory order.

8. By the order under challenge, application for discharge filed by the appellant has been dismissed. It cannot be said that proceedings pending before the Spl.Court have got terminated by virtue of the order passed. Therefore, order under challenge cannot be termed as a final order. In V.C. Shukla's case referred to above relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent, in paragraphs 22 & 23 dealing with nature of an order, whether interlocutory or final, it has been observed by the Apex Court as under:

22. To sum up, the essential attribute of an interlocutory order is that it merely decides some point or matter essential to the progress of the suit or collateral to the issues sought but not a final decision or judgment on the matter in issue. An intermediate order is one which is made between the commencement of an action and the entry of the judgment, Untwalia J. in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra clearly meant to convey that an order framing charge is not an interlocutory order but is an intermediate order as defined in the passage, extracted above, in Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 60. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the observations made in Corpus Juris Secundum. It is obvious that an order of framing the charge being an intermediate order falls squarely within the ordinary and natural meaning of the term 'interlocutory order' as used in S.11(1) of the Act. Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edition, p. 529) defines interlocutory order thus:

"An interlocutory order or judgment is one made or given during the progress of an action, but which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties."

"23. Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decide the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all. This would be the result if the term interlocutory order is interpreted in its natural and logical sense without having resort to Criminal Procedure Code or any other statute. That is to say, if we construe interlocutory order in ordinary parlance it would indicate the attributes, mentioned above, and this is what the term interlocutory order means when used in S.11(1) of the Act."

9. Thus, by referring to dictionary meaning of the expression Interlocutory order and its ordinary and general meaning, the Apex Court has summed up in paragraph 22 stating that, the essential attribute of an interlocutory order is that it merely decides some point or matter essential to the progress of the suit or collateral to the issues sought but, not a final decision or judgment on the matter in issue. An intermediate order, the Apex Court has held, is one which is made between the commencement of an action and the entry of the judgment. While summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the Apex Court has concluded at para 22 of the above judgment that order which terminates the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only the final order. In other words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a pa

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rticular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all. 10. Though several other judgments are also referred by learned counsel for respondent in support of the very contention, we find it unnecessary to deal with the same since it has been authoritatively pronounced by the Apex Court that an interlocutory order does not terminate the proceedings pending before the Court below. In the present case, the Court below has dismissed the application seeking discharge, filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. By such an order, it cannot be said that proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge got terminated. It has to be construed as interlocutory order only. As against an interlocutory order, no appeal is provided under Section 21 of the NIA Act. Therefore, this appeal is not maintainable. Hence the appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-06-2020 Somasundaram @ Somu Versus The State Rep. By The Deputy Commissioner of Police Supreme Court of India
03-06-2020 Bhubaneshwar Expressways Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Highways Authority of India High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Aditya Birla Money Limited, Rep. By its Head – Legal & Compliance, L.R. Murali Krishnan Versus The National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Investors Services Cell, Kotturpuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 K. Shanthi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 M/s SGS Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Bihar Urban Development Agency BUDA, Patna & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
29-05-2020 Rihan & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
29-05-2020 Ameen Shariff @ Jabber Shariff Versus State by Sadshiva Nagara PS, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
29-05-2020 Vazeer Khan & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
29-05-2020 Jayaramappa & Others Versus State by Sulibele Police Station, Rep by SPP & Another High Court of Karnataka
28-05-2020 Sharathkumar & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Government Pleader, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
27-05-2020 Prof. Dr. M. Ramadas, Former Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), Honorary President, Karaikal District Fisherman Reservation Committee, Karaikal Versus Government of Puducherry, Rep. by Chief Secretary, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-05-2020 Gautam Navlakha Versus National Investigation Agency & Another High Court of Delhi
27-05-2020 S. Arundath Versus Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Rep. by Inspector of Police High Court of Karnataka
27-05-2020 Vijaykumar Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
27-05-2020 M. Kalidasan & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-05-2020 M. Thirumoorthi Versus The State rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Coimbatore Railway Police, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-05-2020 Thangarajar Mills Pvt.Limited, Unit III, Rep., by its Manager (Administration) & Another Versus The Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-05-2020 Dr. Divyesh J. Pathak & Others Versus National Board of Examinations & Another High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 Suryadevara Venkata Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
22-05-2020 Gowrmma @ Latha Versus State of Karnataka, by Kengeri Police Station, Rep. by HCGP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
21-05-2020 Groom India Salon and SPA Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-05-2020 Boya Kajje Pedda Ambaraju & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
21-05-2020 Mohammed Mujeeb Versus State by Electronic City Ps, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
20-05-2020 Omgiri Versus The State Through Yadrami Police Station, Rep. by Add. SPP High Court & Another High Court of Karnataka
20-05-2020 Ravish Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
20-05-2020 Muhammed Koya & Others Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, CFS, Ernakulam, (Cr.No. 269 of 1998 of Pala Police, Station), Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 The Federal Agency for State Property Management of the Russian Federation (ROSIMUSHCESTVO) Versus Saraf Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-05-2020 The Director, Jubilee Mission Medical College & Research Institute, Trichur & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by The Secretary To Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 Jai Shiva Mahadeva Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, High Court Building, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
19-05-2020 Baglekar Akash Kumar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-05-2020 Muthumani Gunaraj Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation Anticorruption Branch, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Travancore Devaswom Board, Rep. by Its Secretary Versus The Deputy Examiner, Local Fund Audit, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
15-05-2020 K. Mohammed Amarudeen Versus The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
15-05-2020 Mohet Hojai Versus National Investigation Agency Supreme Court of India
15-05-2020 M.R. Bhat & Others Versus India Awake for Transparency, Rep. by P. Sadanand Goud & Others High Court of Karnataka
13-05-2020 Jayanta Sarkar Versus National Jute Board & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-05-2020 Anil Kumar @ Anil Versus State by Kodigehalli Police Station, Rep. by its Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
12-05-2020 Sheik Madhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition & Exercise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-05-2020 Vairavamurthy Versus The State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Voimedu Police Station, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-05-2020 Anburaj Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tiruvarur Town Police Station, Tiruvarur High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-05-2020 Pallapu Jangaiah, R.R. District & Another Versus The State of A.P., rep. by PP., High Court High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-05-2020 The Management of M/s. Recipharm Pharma Services Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Assistant General Manager Versus G. Vasanthkumr & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-05-2020 Ravipati Nagasarala & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Settu Versus The State, Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Vallam Police Station, Thanjavur High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-05-2020 M/s. Suryadev Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Govind Gagoria & Another Versus M/s. Shri Govindaraja Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director, Aruppukottai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-05-2020 V. Srinivas Chowdary & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Gaddam Koteswaramma Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
07-05-2020 State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai Versus M/s. PRP Exports, M/s. PRP Granites through its Power Agent/Partner, P. Sureshkumar Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-05-2020 G.A. Rama Rao & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, LET & F Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-05-2020 Punjab National Bank & Others Versus Atmanand Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
05-05-2020 Dr. Udayaravi & Another Versus State of Karnataka by CID, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
05-05-2020 S.K. Abhishek @ Abhi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
05-05-2020 Grievances Redressal Officer, M/s. Economic Times Internet Ltd., Haryana & Others Versus M/s. V.V. Minerals Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Manager & Power Agent, S. Krishnamurthy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Appellate Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-04-2020 A - Focus (Advocates - Focus), Rep. by its President Sangappa Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Chief Secretary to Government & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-04-2020 IFFCO-TOKIO GIC Ltd., Rep. by its Manager Versus Susheela & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-04-2020 Shaik Janimiya Versus State Bank of India, SAM Branch II, Rep by its Authorized Officer, Kachiguda, Hyderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-04-2020 P. Chandrasekhar Rao & Another Versus The State of Telangana Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-04-2020 P. Damodhar Versus The Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited rep by its Joint Managing Director, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-04-2020 Dr. Devyesh J. Pathak & Others Versus National Board of Examination & Others High Court of Delhi
24-04-2020 K. Bharathi Versus The State rep.by its Principal Secretary, Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-04-2020 Dr. Mandira Sarkar & Others Versus State of Karnataka Department of Health & Family Welfare, Rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
24-04-2020 M. Sudarshan Goud & Others Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of for the State of Telangana
22-04-2020 National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Versus S.A. Alimenta Supreme Court of India
21-04-2020 Hindu Munnani, Rep by its state secretary, K. Kuttalanathan & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-04-2020 Balamurugan Versus The State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-04-2020 Ameed Versus The State of Karnataka, Through Gundlupet PS., Rep. by Spp High Court, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
16-04-2020 Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam rep. by its Organising Secretary R.S. Bharathi "Anna Arivalayam" Chennai Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 (The State) The National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Assam Versus Akhil Gogoi High Court of Gauhati
03-04-2020 P.A. Josseph Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-03-2020 Bala Krishna Mandapati Versus The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Chief Secretary, Revenue (Disaster Management-II), Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-03-2020 L.C. Nagaraja Versus The State by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Rep. by its Standing Counsel, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-03-2020 B. Sivakumar & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-03-2020 G. Rajesh Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-03-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Sikkim Versus Bishal Chettri & Another High Court of Sikkim
20-03-2020 V. Radha Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-03-2020 State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the District Collector, Namakkal & Another Versus Marimuthu & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-03-2020 The State, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras Versus Vazhivittan & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-03-2020 Stephen Steward & others Versus Union of India, Rep. by the Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkatta & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
18-03-2020 N.C. Lakshmi Narasimhan Versus The State rep. by Inspector of Police, W-32 All Women Police Station, Madipakkam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 VVR Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Rep By Its Chairman, V. Sambasiva Rao Versus Chennupathi Hanumantha Rao National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 M/s. COPCO Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director K. George Versus Southern Railway, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 S. Stella Marry Versus Union of India, Rep, by Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
17-03-2020 Asst. S.I. of Police, Adimaly, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala Versus Saidumuhammed & Others High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 S. Vaikundarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMD.2) Department, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-03-2020 P. Suresh Versus State Rep.by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pattabiram Range, (T-11, Thirunindravur Incharge) High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 P. Thenmozhi Versus Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. By its Chairman, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 P. Thenmozhi Versus Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. By its Chairman, Chennai & Another Supreme Court of India
16-03-2020 D. Karuppayee Ammal Versus Arulmigu Ayyanar koil, Arulmigu Manthaiamman Kovil, Arulmigu Muniyandieswar Temple, Rep. by its Trustee & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 A. Pandi Selvi Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-03-2020 Sankar Prasad Bose & Another Versus M/s. Shitala Construction Rep. by Ajit Panja & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata, through its Regional Manager Versus Marotrao & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
13-03-2020 G. Gopalakrishnan & Others Versus State rep by the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-03-2020 Ramu Kalanjiam Venkataraman, Director, M/s. Lakshmi Petro Pvt Ltd., Chennai Versus M/s. Paceman Finance India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Elumalai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Tamil Nadu Hdpe Knitted Fabrics Manufacturess Association & Others Versus V.K.A. Polymers Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Karuppannan & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-03-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Suchandra Basak West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-03-2020 Tamilarasan & Another Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Madurai District & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-03-2020 Sai Electromech Industries, A Sole Proprietary Concern rep.by Its Proprietor Umangkumar Joshi Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory S. Mahadevan High Court of Judicature at Madras


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