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



B. Sunil Kumar & Another v/s Cochin University of Science & Technology, Rep. by Its Registrar & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- G P C TECHNOLOGY LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = L31300DL1980PLC010998

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

Company & Directors' Information:- T R S TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2003PTC119643

Company & Directors' Information:- A 1 TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200PB2002PTC035548

Company & Directors' Information:- D TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403MH2015PTC268305

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:- B S TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28990DL2013PTC262594

Company & Directors' Information:- P S TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31902WB1997PTC084379

Company & Directors' Information:- COCHIN CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999KL1963PTC002029

Company & Directors' Information:- K & D TECHNOLOGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72500MP2007PTC019697

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

Company & Directors' Information:- KUMAR TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300DL1998PTC096213

Company & Directors' Information:- E M TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2000PTC105539

Company & Directors' Information:- R M TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2016PTC280859

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

Company & Directors' Information:- T & C TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC074144

Company & Directors' Information:- SUNIL & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U32109WB1984PTC037810

Company & Directors' Information:- P & A TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45208OR2011PTC014269

Company & Directors' Information:- Q & Q TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2013PTC259002

Company & Directors' Information:- SUNIL KUMAR PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U17111RJ1985PTC003429

Company & Directors' Information:- G M I TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2011PTC075075

Company & Directors' Information:- I E TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2001PTC132315

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

Company & Directors' Information:- I P L TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29290MH2000PTC127550

Company & Directors' Information:- G I TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200MH2005PTC156230

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

Company & Directors' Information:- P C TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2015PTC278616

Company & Directors' Information:- V & P TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200HR2011PTC044721

Company & Directors' Information:- N C A TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PB2008PTC031981

Company & Directors' Information:- M G TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2007PTC172003

Company & Directors' Information:- T & S TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U32204DL2008PTC177037

    WP(C). No. 32638 of 2019

    Decided On, 24 August 2020

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE P.V. ASHA

    For the Petitioners: K.M. Ameer, O.A. Nuriya, M.J. Jesna, Advocates. For the Respondents: S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai, P.C. Sasidharan, SC, P.M. Manoj, Sr. G.P.



Judgment Text


1. The petitioners, who are differently abled persons, are included in Ext.P3 rank list for appointment to the post of Sweeper cum Cleaner. 4 candidates with locomotor disability and one candidate with hearing impairment are included in Ext.P3 rank list, who are found eligible for special reservation, as per G.O.(P) No.8/17/S.J.D dated 06.05.2017 and the list is published as an addendum to the rank list Ext.P2 published on 28.12.2018. These rank lists are published on the basis of a notification issued by the University on 30.12.2008, based on which a short list was published on 11.02.2011.

2. It is stated that on account of a series of litigation the appointments could not be made. In the meanwhile the appointments of non-teaching staff in the Universities in the State were brought under the purview of PSC. However no selection is so far made for the post of Sweeper cum Cleaner by PSC. Petitioners claim that all of them are entitled to be appointed, as the University has never filled any vacancies from among the differently abled candidates except one candidate from Ext.P2 list with hearing impairment.

3. According to the University, appointments from Ext.P2 and P3 rank lists were made against 43 vacancies which arose after 01.01.2008. Out of the 43 turn no.1 and 34 were set apart for differently abled candidates. Vacancy at turn no.1 could not be filled up in the absence of blind/low vision candidates. Vacancy at 34 was filled up by appointing the candidate with hearing impairment from Ext.P3 list. One vacancy is kept unfilled based on the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No.3811/2019, filed by another candidate included in Ext.P3 list. According to the University, if at all any backlog vacancies are to be filled up from differently abled candidates that can be only after conducting a special recruitment and University cannot make any appointment against backlog vacancies from Exts.P2 or P3 lists, as per the Government Orders in force. It is stated that University has already addressed the Government in Ext.R1(b) letter dated 05.09.2019 requesting to permit it to appoint the candidates in Ext.P3 list against vacancies which arose between 2004 to 2007, by creating supernumerary posts and seeking permission for filling up the vacancy earmarked for a particular category of disability by passing over to the next category of disability in the event of non-availability of the particular category. But the Government did not give any reply. It is stated that the turn of those like petitioners with locomotor disability comes at 67th vacancy. Therefore it is stated that petitioners are not entitled to be appointed from Ext.P3 list.

4. On a query from this court the learned Standing Counsel fairly submitted that no appointment was made from differently abled candidates in any of the previous selections. That means the entire backlog vacancies from 07.02.1996 against the 3% quota admissible to them are to be filled up. The contention of the University that Government Orders stand in the way of filling up backlog vacancies cannot be correct, when petitioners have produced Ext.P6 circular issued by Government by which direction is issued to the Universities also to take steps to fill up the vacancies for differently abled.

5. Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Section 34 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, mandate the appointment of differently abled candidates against 3% of the vacancies from 07.02.1996 and 4% vacancies from 19.04.2017, in establishments including the respondent University.

6. In the light of the law laid down in the judgments of the Apex Court in Govt. of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta: (2010) 7 SCC 626, Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind: (2013) 10 SCC 772, Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India : (2014)14 SCC 383,Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India: (2016) 13 SCC 153,Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India: (2017) 14 SCC 1, where the Apex court has repeatedly reminded the State and other authorities under the State about their statutory duty to fill up the vacancies earmarked for the disabled under both the Acts, the University cannot be heard to contend that Government order is not permitting them to make appointment. It is also relevant to note the following direction in the judgment in National Federation of the Blind's case (supra) of the Apex court :

“55.2. We hereby direct the “appropriate Government” to compute the number of vacancies available in all the “establishments” and further identify the posts for disabled persons within a period of three months from today and implement the same without default”

7. In the judgment in Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India: (2017) 14 SCC 1, the Apex court after analysing the provisions in the 2016 Act directed as follows:

25. Regard being had to the change in core aspects, we think it apposite to direct all the States and the Union Territories to file compliance report keeping in view the provisions of the 2016 Act within twelve weeks hence. The States and the Union Territories must realize that under the 2016 Act their responsibilities have grown and they are required to actualize the purpose of the Act, for there is an accent on many a sphere with regard to the rights of those with disabilities. When the law is so concerned for the disabled persons and makes provision, it is the obligation of the law executing authorities to give effect to the same in quite promptitude. The steps taken in this regard shall be concretely stated in the compliance report within the time stipulated. When we are directing the States, a duty is cast also on the States and its authorities to see that the statutory provisions that are enshrined and applicable to the cooperative societies, companies, firms, associations and establishments, institutions, are scrupulously followed. The State Governments shall take immediate steps to comply with the requirements of the 2016 Act and file the compliance report so that this Court can appreciate the progress made.”

8. The aforesaid directions are applicable to the Cochin University also. It is also relevant to note that in Dineshan E V State of Kerala and Others: 2014(4)KHC 988, this court directed to fill up all the backlog vacancies in Government owned companies and Public Sector Undertaking for the period from 1996. The Division Bench in Kerala Public Service Commission V E. Dineshan and others: 2016(2) KHC 910, affirming that judgment repelled the contention of the appellants that appointment of differently abled can only be made resorting to special recruitment and directed to fill up all the backlog vacancies from the rank list. Therefore the University is also bound to fill up the backlog vacancies, against the vacancies to be filled up by them.

9. It was pointed out that university has made 70 appointments from the rank list of 2005 against the vacancies which arose from 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2007. No candidate from differently abled was appointed from that rank list. Though it was pointed out that the Government has as per order dated 18.12.2010, entrusted the recruitment of all non-teaching staff with PSC and therefore the University is not in a position to make any further appointment against any vacancy which arose thereafter, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC pointed out that the post of Sweeper cum Cleaner does not come under the purview of the PSC, since no regulations are issued so far bringing those posts within the purview of PSC. Therefore there cannot be any impediment in filling up the existing vacancies.

10. As at present there are only 4 candidates remaining in Ext.P3 rank list. It is also pointed out that one vacancy is kept unfilled as per interim order in another case. As the respondent University is duty bound to fill up

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

3% of its vacancies in the post of Sweeper cum Cleaner from 07.02.1996 under the 1995 Act and 4% vacancies under the RPWD Act 2016, there would be sufficient number of vacancies to accommodate the petitioners as against the 1% vacancies available for direct recruitment. The question of creating any supernumerary posts will not arise as it is the statutory responsibility of the University to fill up vacancies in accordance with the provisions contained in 1995 Act and also under the 2016 Act. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the University to compute the 1% vacancies available for the candidates with locomotor disability reckoning the vacancies for the period from 07.02.1996 and to make appointments from Ext.P3 rank list within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

20-10-2020 M/S. S. Gopal Kamath (Cochin) (P) Ltd. Kochi Versus V.K. Pushkaran High Court of Kerala
20-10-2020 For the Applicant: Sudeep Kumar, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey, Advocates. For the Respondents: ----------- High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
19-10-2020 Gigabyte Technology (India) Private Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
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 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
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
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
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
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
12-10-2020 Sushil Kumar Pandey & Others Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
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 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
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
09-10-2020 Karan Yadav alias Karan Kumar Yadav Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 A. Mohammed Ataulla & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by the SPP, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
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 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
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 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
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
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
29-09-2020 Anandha Kumar Versus Sathya 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 Tabu Ram Pegu Versus The State of Assam, Rep. By The PP, Assam & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 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 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
25-09-2020 Mallappa & Another Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
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 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 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 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 Kumar Versus M.P. Selvaraj & Another 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 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 Jantra Wanida & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
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 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
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
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 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 B. Ramamoorthy & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, 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 M/s. Standard Metalloys Private Limited, through its Authorised Signatory Sumit Tripathi Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-09-2020 Thankappan Pillai Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
18-09-2020 Priyamvada Devi Birla (Dec.) & Others Versus Ajay Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-09-2020 Vangamudi Kasimayan, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., rep PP. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-09-2020 Anandi Versus State, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
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
17-09-2020 Mahasamy Versus Minor Prakash, Rep. By his father & natural guardian Rajendran, Tiruppur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-2020 R. Pradeep Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
16-09-2020 Atmesh Kumar Roy Versus Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-09-2020 Leitwind Shriram Manufacturing Private Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, Gomathythamarai Selvi Versus GR Green Life Energy Pvt. Ltd., Pune High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 P.C. Latha & Others Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
15-09-2020 Dinesh Kumar Versus Priyanka & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras