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



B. Rajesh & Another v/s Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others


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

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJESH CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U08011BR1993PLC005446

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

Company & Directors' Information:- CORPORATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74110DL1999PTC099505

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY LTD. [Active] CIN = U36900WB1927PLC005621

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJESH AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U12300MH1959PTC011285

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999KA1942PTC000292

    WP Nos. 31140 & 31432 of 2019 & WMP Nos. 31608, 31609 & 31263 of 2019

    Decided On, 03 September 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

    For the Petitioner: N.L. Rajah, Senior Counsel, E. Jayashankar, Advocate. For the Respondents: M.L. Ganesh, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent viz., Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India represented by its Chairperson to dispose the complaint dated 23.01.2019 submitted by the petitioner to them in Form A against 5th, 6th and 7th respondents within the time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents culminating in the impugned letter bearing No.SAMB/CBE/CLO-I/436 dated 02.06.2018 issued by the first respondent declaring the account of Everon Castings Pvt. Ltd., as NPA culminating in sale notice dated 13.09.2019 SAMB/CBE/CLO-IV/556 issued by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently forbear the respondent from taking any further coercive action including any measures to enforce by sale or auction the security offered by the petitioner in respect of the borrowings of M/s.Everon Castings Pvt. Ltd., situated at Coimbatore Corporation in old TS.No.7/3082 and New TS.No.7/116/1A part in this Southern Portion of site No.6 within the Coimbatore Registration District.)

Common Order

R. Hemalatha, J.

1. Both the writ petitioners are connected to M/s.Everon Castings Private Limited. The petitioner, Mr.Rajesh in WP.No.31140 of 2019 is the founder director of the company and the petitioner in WP.No.31432 of 2019, Mrs.Dhanalakshmi is a third party guarantor who offered one of the collateral securities for the company to avail credit facilities from State Bank of India. In brief, the company, M/s.Everon Castings Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Corporate Debtor) was promoted in 2008. It was a manufacturing unit for large size steel castings. By 2010, it commenced the operations and was supplying big fortune 500 companies and had a strength of 300 employees. According to the petitioner in WP.No.31140 of 2019, in 2014-2015, when the crude oil prices crashed, the trouble started and company stared at a severe cash crunch. The respondent in WP.No.31432 of 2019, State Bank of India, took over the existing loan facilities of the company from Karur Vysya Bank in 2017. The company had availed many credit facilities from State Bank of India.

2. One of the operational creditors of the company, M/s.Precision Machine and Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. moved a petition CP/666/IB/2017 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which admitted the company to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 29.12.2017 after declaring it as insolvent. The petitioner in WP.No.31140 of 2019, who is also the Managing Director of the company (Corporate Debtor) having found lacunae and inordinate delay in the commencement and implementation of CIRP approached the NCLT by filing MA/498/2018 in CP/666/IB/2017 seeking the following reliefs.

a) Exclude 120 days of the CIRP Process from the date of commencement of the CIRP viz., 29.12.2017 and direct the continuation of the CIRP Process for a further period of 120 days;

b) Set aside the decision of the COC dated 26.07.2018 whereby the Applicant No.1 was held disqualified under Section 29A (g);

c) Set aside the decision of the COC dated 18.09.2018 whereby the Applicant No.2 was held disqualified under Section 29A (g);

d) Consequent to the above, direct the Resolution Professional and COC to consider the Resolution Plan submitted by these applicants jointly and severally afresh without being influenced by their previous biased decisions;

e) Declare the decision of the 2nd respondent to treat the Corporate Debtor as an NPA on 26.03.2018 as being illegal;

f) Such other orders in the interests of justice.

But the petition was dismissed. One of the important reliefs sought was to declare the decision of the State Bank of India to treat the Corporate Debtor as Non-Performing Asset on 26.03.2018 as illegal. Another plea to exclude the period of alleged delay (120 days) on the part of Interim Resolution Professional from the 270 days period, also failed. Both the resolution plans submitted to the Committee of Creditors (COC) by the petitioner on behalf of the Corporate Debtor were also rejected. Simultaneously, MA/460/2018 in CP/666/IB/2017 was filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) and the Corporate Debtor, M/s.Everon Castings Pvt. Ltd. against the operational creditor, M/s.Precision Machine and Auto Components Pvt. Ltd., and the Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor, Mr.Rajesh Balasubramanian which was disposed off with the passing of the liquidation order. The petitioner in WP.No.31140 of 2019 preferred a complaint against the said order in MA/498/2018 with the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India. In the meanwhile, the appeals against the order of NCLT in MA/460/2018 under Section 33 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for liquidation of the company, M/s.Everon Castings Pvt. Ltd., (the Corporate Debtor) and the order in MA/498/2018, rejecting the plea to exclude 120 days from the CIRP period, and the plea to reconsider the two resolution plans by COC were dismissed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

3. In the other petition, WP.No.31432 of 2019, the petitioner Mrs.S.Dhanalakshmi is a guarantor to the loans availed by the Corporate Debtor and also has provided her property as one of the collateral securities for the credit facilities availed from State Bank of India ( the respondent) by the company, M/s.Everon Castings Pvt. Ltd. (the Corporate Debtor). She had pleaded that the declaration of Non Performing Asset when the CIRP was in process, is illegal and that therefore all proceedings including the sale notice be declared void ab initio. Her contention also was that she was in no way connected with the decision making process of the company (Corporate Debtor) and therefore, this aspect also needs to be considered by this Court.

4. On the part of both the petitioners, the learned Senior counsel Mr.N.L.Rajah assisted by Mr.E.Jayashankar made the following submissions:

(a) The financial creditor (State Bank of India) who is the common respondent in both the petitions was without any jurisdiction, while proceeding against the Corporate Debtor as the CIRP was in progress and consequent moratorium imposed.

(b) The declaration of Non Performing Asset by the financial creditor even when the petitions with NCLT and the appeals with NCLAT were pending was totally illegal and against the basic tenets of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

(c) The pendency of the complaint by the Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor under Sub Regulation (3) of Regulation (3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Grievance and Complaint Handling Procedure) Regulation 2017 was not considered by the NCLAT while dismissing the appeal.

(d) Notwithstanding the aforesaid submissions, the financial creditor is restricted by the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

5. The learned counsel further relied on the decision in Union of India vs. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. and others decided by NCLAT, New Delhi in which it was held that “Non Performing Asset relates to an Asset, ie., loan or advance which becomes non-performing when it ceases to generate income for the Bank. Thus, it relates to the Banks and we are satisfied that declaration of Non Performing Asset by the Bank in no manner will affect the Corporate Debtor to continue as a going concern”.

6. The learned counsels for the respondent bank, State Bank of India, M/s.M.L.Ganesh and S.Arunkumar would contend that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, would not apply to a personal guarantee of a Corporate Debtor as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India vs. V.Ramakrishnan reported in 2018 (9) SCALE 597. Thus their contention was that the assets of the surety are separate from those of the Corporate Debtor and therefore the recourse against the guarantor was outside the liquidation proceedings and had no restrictions under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It is their further contention that Section 14 clearly applies only to the security interests over the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

7. It was also pointed out by them that the declaration of Non Performing Asset of the account of the Corporate Debtor during the moratorium was challenged in NCLT in MA/498/2018, but, the latter did not buy the argument when dismissing the petition and it remained unchallenged in NCLAT.

8. Moreover, the learned counsels of the respondent bank further contended that the respondent bank had sold the property belonging to Mrs.Dhanalakshmi on 05.10.2019 and the sale was already confirmed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Coimbatore as provided for under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Their further contention was that neither the notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act nor the possession notice under Section 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act and the subsequent sale notices were challenged by the guarantor Mrs.Dhanalakshmi.

9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on the prevailing conundrum surrounding the moratorium under Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the personal guarantor’s liability. His further contention is that it is true that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 primarily envisages a resolution process for a Corporate Debtor, and only if it is unsuccessful contemplates an adversarial process. Thus any claims made by individual creditors must not be allowed to supercede the process of resolution ie., when CIRP is underway. According to him, Corporate Debtor is obliged to repay dues of all the creditors in due proportion and its capacity. Such liberties given to the creditors to enforce guarantee is a clear violation of equality to be maintained inter se amongst the creditors.

10. This contention raises a major question as to whether creditors can independently proceed against the guarantor. The Hon’ble Apex Court had laid to rest this argument about whether the moratorium on the Corporate Debtor will apply to the guarantor or not. It has categorically held that moratorium does not apply to the personal guarantor. However, unlike in most of the cases, in the instant case, the guarantor is not directly involved in the management of the company. She is a third party. It is also observed in the instant case that the securitization notice under Section 13 (2) is dated 13.02.2019 and is not an independent notice. It is not only for the guarantors property when the appeal of the company under NCLAT was pending, but for all the properties taken as collateral securities for the credit facilities to the corporate Debtor. The final order of the NCLAT is dated 25.02.2019 and this in fact marked the culmination of the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, though technically speaking the CIRP was over on 24.09.2018. The outcome of the appeal in NCLAT was crucial because the petitioner / appellant had wanted further extension of time. Moreover, the financial creditor, State Bank of India did not proceed against the personal guarantor separately. It was only by way of the securitization notice dated 13.02.2019 issued to the Corporate Debtor with copies to all the guarantors. Notwithstanding the aforesaid observations made by this Court, the petitioner in WP.No.31432 of 2019 is permitted to approach the DRT/NCLT for any relief in this regard as alternative efficacious remedy is available for the petitioner. The WP.No.31432 of 2019 is disposed of with these directions. The prayer in the WP.No.31140 of 2019 is filed for writ of mandamus directing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to dispose of the complaint dated 23.01.2019 submitted by the petitioner to them in ‘Form A’ against the orders in NCLT in MA/498/2018 and MA/460/2018 in CP/666/IB/2017. Mr.M.L.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent / State Bank of India, contended that the writ petition itself has become infructuous since the 4th respondent had already considered the complaint dated 09.01.2019 (and not 23.01.2019 as mentioned in the writ petition) and the same has been closed after verification of records submitted by

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the IRP / RP. He would further contend that the 4th respondent had also directed the RP to follow the liquidation rules. This writ petition is also infructuous for the reason that the NCLAT on an appeal preferred by the petitioner in this writ petition had disposed of both the petitions filed by him against the orders of NCLT with the following observation. “In view of the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that the liquidator should act in terms of the aforesaid directions of the Appellate Tribunal and take steps under Section 230 of the Companies Act. If the members of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ or the ‘creditors’ approach the company through the liquidator for compromise or arrangement by making proposal of payment to all the creditor(s), the Liquidator on behalf of the company will move an application under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 before the National Company Law Tribunal, in terms of the observations as made in ‘S.C.Sekaran vs. Amit Gupta & others - Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No.495 & 496 of 2018’. On failure, as observed above, steps should be taken for outright sale of the ‘corporate debtor’ so as to enable the employees to continue in service on such outright sale.” 11. In the result, WP.No.31140 of 2019 is closed and WP.No.31439 of 2019 is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-10-2020 UETC India Ltd., New Delhi Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-10-2020 M/s Sahara India Thru. Partner Om Prakash Srivastava & Another Versus U.O.I. Thru Secy. Ministry Of Labour, New Delhi & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
19-10-2020 G. Mahesh. & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
16-10-2020 A. Prasad & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
15-10-2020 Gautam Mehra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-10-2020 C. Gopala Krishnan Versus The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep. by it's Secretary, TNPSC Road, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
15-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Collections & Another Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-10-2020 Senior Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Rajesh Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-10-2020 Zilingo Pte. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
14-10-2020 SGT Aadesh Kumar Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
14-10-2020 T. Kavinraj Versus Union of India Represented by its Ministry of Human Resource and Development Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-10-2020 Veenesh Kumar Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-10-2020 Emaar Mgf Land Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Gurpreet Gill National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-10-2020 Rajiv Saxena Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
13-10-2020 Dr. Akshee Batra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
13-10-2020 Gaddi Gangi Reddy Versus The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
13-10-2020 N. Shankar Prasad Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Velagapudi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-10-2020 M/S. Renuka Poultry Farm Rep. By Its Managing Partner, Sri Badraiah, Karnataka Versus M/s. State Bank of India Rep By Its Assistant General Manager A Rajendra Prasad National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 Shalam Ali Versus Union of India (Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-10-2020 Mahasemam Trust, A Public Trust, Rep. by its Trustee, Dr. Prabu Vairavan Prakasam Versus Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Finance Department, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2020 Chilukuri Prasannanjaneya Reddy Versus Union of India High Court of Andhra Pradesh
09-10-2020 Akul Bhargava & Others Versus Union Public Service Commission & Others High Court of Delhi
09-10-2020 Wing Commander Mallikarjun Gourimath Versus Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
09-10-2020 Meethelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporation Affairs, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2020 New Delhi Municipal Council Versus Hari Ram Tiwari High Court of Delhi
08-10-2020 C. Rajakumari & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Industries (MIA), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-10-2020 Umapathi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
08-10-2020 Ravi Agarwal Versus M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, C.D. Kishore High Court of Karnataka
08-10-2020 Ricardo Agnelo Teixeira De Almeida Queiroz & Another Versus Rajesh Sawal & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
08-10-2020 Mala Sahni Seth Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-10-2020 M/s. Wizard Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager, Mumbai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
07-10-2020 Nikita Sutar Minor D/o Late Chandra Chetry Sutar @ Chandra Bahadur Sutar, Rep. By Hre Mother/Legal Guardian Smti Manju Devi @ Manju Sutar, Assam Versus The State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
07-10-2020 M/s. Thamraparni Enterprises, Rep. by its Partner K.S. Sundaram Versus M/s. Simpson and Company Ltd., Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 Sapat Khan Versus Union of India Through Intelligence Officer High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-10-2020 Rikhab Jain Versus M/S. Trackon Couriers Private Limited, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-10-2020 State of kerala, Rep. by Tahsildar, Kothamangalam Versus The Secretary, Nirmalgram Vannith Dairy Central Society Keerampara, Kothamangalam & Others High Court of Kerala
06-10-2020 Ramesh Versus Union of India Represented by its Secretary to Government (Revenue) Government of Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2020 A. Mohammed Ataulla & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by the SPP, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
05-10-2020 Tarun Kanti Chowdhury & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-10-2020 M/s. CEE DEE Yes IT Parks Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Chennai Versus The Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Supervision, Represented by its Chief General manager-in-charge, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2020 Parul Majumdar Laskar & Others Versus The Union of India to Be Rep. By The Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
01-10-2020 Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd. G-III, Amar Palace, Panchsheel Square, Dhantoli, Nagpur Versus Union of India Through its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shramshakti Bhavan, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-10-2020 M/s. Kashmir Wine & Provision Store Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
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 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 Naveen Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Bayer New Zealand Limited Versus Ministry For Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 M/s. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust, Established & Namakkal Represented by Chairman, V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary Cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Lalatendu Nayak & Another Versus Supertech Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-09-2020 Ashok Vishwakarma Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
29-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Calicut, Represented by Its Manager Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
29-09-2020 Tabu Ram Pegu Versus The State of Assam, Rep. By The PP, Assam & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 Kore Raju Versus The State of Telangana being rep., by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-09-2020 Yashwanth @ Yashavant Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
29-09-2020 M/s ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi Versus The Union of India through Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and IT, Government of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
28-09-2020 Union of India The General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Guwahati Versus On The Death of Baneswar Das His Legal Heir Manju Das & Others High Court of Gauhati
25-09-2020 Asi (Steno) Hrishikesh Das Versus The State of Assam Rep. By The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
25-09-2020 Rhonpal Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus New Delhi Municipal Council & Others High Court of Delhi
25-09-2020 Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, (Presently NLC India Limited), Rep. by its General Manager (Contracts) Corporate Office, Neyveli Versus M/s. TENOVA India Pvt. Ltd., Alwarpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2020 Mallappa & Another Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
25-09-2020 Asha Mukherjee Versus Union of India & others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-09-2020 Yogesh Agarwal & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. herein by: The Investigation Officer Cyber Crime Police Station (CID), Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
24-09-2020 Ani & Others Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Another High Court of Kerala
24-09-2020 Raghavan & Another Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 Maharudragouda Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Ranebennur Town Police, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
23-09-2020 Rajegowda @ Guruswamy & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 M. Umapathy & Another Versus The Joint Commissioner of Labour-I, (Registrar of Trade Union), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 C.M. Gadha & Another Versus Bar Council of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
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
23-09-2020 Nagalakshmi (died) & Another Versus Sivaprakasam, Rep.by his Power Agent and his wife Senthamil Selvi High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Tousif Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
22-09-2020 Ramesh Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
22-09-2020 The Visnagar Taluka Co-Operative Purchase & Sales Union Limited (Deleted) Versus District Registrar, Co-Op. Societies High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
22-09-2020 M/s. Boxster Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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 Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Versus Shanthamma & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Jantra Wanida & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Guptasons Jewellers & Gems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 M. Rajalakshmi Versus Union of India Represented by the Secretary to Government Department of Revenue & Disaster Management Govt. of Union Territory of Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Shivanand Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary Dept. of Revenue, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Yellappa Versus The Management of NWKRTC, Rep. by its Divisional Controller, Gadag High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
19-09-2020 National Investigation Agency Chikoti Garden, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by A.G. Kaiser Versus Vinay Talekar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-09-2020 K. Murugan: Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2547/15 T. Velladurai, Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2548/15, Versus The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office, Alangulam & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court