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



Badavath Leela v/s The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration ((Spl.(Law & Order), Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others


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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- LAW & LAW PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1948PTC017020

Company & Directors' Information:- L C LAW & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1978PTC031529

    Writ Petition No. 8765 of 2020

    Decided On, 20 August 2020

    At, High Court of for the State of Telangana

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

    For the Petitioner: P. Trivikram Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents: T. Srikanth Reddy GP for Home.



Judgment Text


B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.

1. The detention order vide 12/PD CELL/CCRB/RCKD/2020, dated 12.03.2020 passed against Badavath Kishan S/o. Tharya, by the 2nd respondent, Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertilizer Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (Amendment Act No.13 of 2018) (for short ‘the Act’) and as confirmed by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.885, General Administration (SPL) Law & Order Department dated 13.05.2020, are challenged in this Writ of Habeas Corpus as being illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Mr. P. Trivikram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is passed without application of mind and the detenu can be dealt with under ordinary law. The detention order was passed mechanically based on solitary offence. The bail petition of the detenu is dismissed and he continues to be in judicial custody. There is no proper subjective satisfaction arrived at warranting the 2nd respondent to pass the impugned detention order. There is no justification for passing the detention order merely because the detenu is likely to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The detention order grossly violates detenu’s right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that the detenu was involved in Crime No.876 of 2019 under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Kushaiguda P.S. The detenu was found to be in possession of the narcotic drug “Ganja” weighing kg., and “heroin” weighing 25 grams and the same were seized in addition to two cell phones, which were used by him for communication purpose in the commission of offence. After having completed recovery, he was remanded to judicial custody on 26.12.2019. The samples collected from the seized contraband were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratories for chemical analysis and report, wherefrom, it was found that it is “Diacetylmorphine” a narcotic drug, “Alprazolam” a psychotropic substance and “Ganja” a Narcotic Drug. The Professor and HOD of Gandhi Medical college furnished adverse affects of Ganja and Heroin on human body and opined that “Ganja” affects mental illness, paranoid behaviour, panic and it affect both acute toxic and chronic effect on human body whereas “heroin” affects myocardial damage, breathing is severely slowed and sometimes enough to be life threatening, slowed breathing can also lead to coma and permanent brain damage and also other severe health complications on human body.

5. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the detenu moved bail petition in Cr.No.876 of 2019 vide Crl.M.P. No.91 of 2020 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, L.B. Nagar wherein the Police filed a counter opposing the grant of bail to him and the same was dismissed on 05.01.2020. The detenu squarely answers the description of ‘Drug Offender’ as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. The activities of the detenu are likely to be prejudicial to the public health and public order and with a view to prevent him from further indulging in such offences, the detention order is passed, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. In the detention order, the detaining authority has referred to a solitary criminal case, as the ground case for passing the detention order i.e. Crime No.876 of 2019 under Section 8(c) r/w. 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Kushaiguda Police Station. It is borne out of record that the detenu moved bail petition in the said crime vide Crl.MP. No.91 of 2020 before the MSJ, L.B. Nagar wherein the Police filed counter, opposing the grant of bail, and the same was dismissed on 05.01.2020 and he continues to be in judicial custody. After dismissal of the said bail petition no other bail petition was moved.

7. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the impugned detention order was on the basis that the detenu would again move bail petition to come out of the prison and mandatory bail period will also be completed soon. As such, there is every possibility of detenu being released on either regular bail or on mandatory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.PC., in due course and if so, there are imminent possibilities of his being indulged in similar prejudicial activities again, which would be prejudicial and detrimental to the maintenance of public order and public health at large.

8. Grant of bail for the offences under NDPS Act is governed under the provisions of NDPS Act and under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, strict mechanism is provided and unless the concerned Court is satisfied that the accused is not involved in commission of offence, bail, ordinarily, would not be granted. If the Police authorities feel that even after strongly opposing the bail, the concerned Court has granted bail, it is always left open for the authorities to move an application for cancellation of bail either before the same Court or higher Court. Without resorting to such steps, the State chose to invoke provisions of preventive detention law and the same amounts to arbitrary exercise of powers conferred under the preventive detention laws. Further it is unwarranted for the detaining authority to pass the detention order on the premise that the detenu would be released on mandatory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. In serious offences arising under NDPS Act, the Police are expected to conduct investigation within a shortest possible time. If there is a delay in conducting investigation and charge sheet is not filed within 60/90 days as the case may be, from the date of remand, the detenu/accused would be automatically entitled to mandatory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The detaining authority cannot assume that charge-sheet will not be filed within the prescribed time, after remand, and mandatory bail would be granted to the detenu. The State cannot take advantage of its own inefficiency in completing the investigation expeditiously. The State/Police should make all endeavours to file charge sheet within 60/90 days of remand so as to prevent the accused from taking advantage of mandatory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. But without doing so and without being vigilant of its duties and responsibilities, the State cannot be permitted to invoke provisions of preventive detention laws as an easy and alternate way method. The impugned order is thus vitiated since it passed on extraneous grounds.

9. The personal liberty of an individual is a precious and prized human right. The framers of the Constitution have recognized and reinforced such human right of personal liberty, and made it part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Personal liberty is not a gift which the State can feel it has bestowed on its citizens. Every citizen will be entitled to right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless he is deprived so by following due process of law. A citizen enjoys personal liberty not at the mercy of the State, but because the Constitution has bestowed on him such right. If detention order is to be passed for the mere reason the detenu would be entitled to mandatory bail, then it would be travesty of justice. The benefit of mandatory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is available to an accused so as to ensure that he is not kept under prolonged custody. The period of 60/90 days, as the case may be, from the date of the remand of the accused, in the wisdom of law makers is found to be reasonable for filing charge-sheet, and in default the accused would be entitled to default/mandatory bail. Such benefit of default/mandatory bail is in consonance with basic elements of justice and fairplay, and in pursuit of protection of personal liberty which has acquired the status of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

10. The importance of default bail vis--vis personal liberty has been exhaustively discussed in the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RAKESH KUMAR PAUL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM (2017) 15 SCC 67). The historical importance of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., whereby facility of statutory bail given to the accused who is in custody for a period of 60/90 days, as the case may be, if the charge-sheet is not filed, has been exhaustively discussed. The intrinsic connection of default bail with personal liberty has been culled out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment. Some important observations in the judgment are extracted below:

“Discussion from personal liberty perspective

28. We may also look at the entire issue not only from the narrow interpretational perspective but from the perspective of personal liberty. Ever since 1898, the legislative intent has been to conclude investigations within twenty-four hours. This intention has not changed for more than a century, as the marginal notes to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. suggest. However, the Legislature has been pragmatic enough to appreciate that it is not always possible to complete investigations into an offence within twenty-four hours. Therefore initially, in the Cr.P.C. of 1898, a maximum period of 15 days was provided for completing the investigations. Unfortunately, this limit was being violated through the subterfuge of taking advantage of Section 344 of the Cr.P.C. of 1898. The misuse was recognized in the 41 st Report of the Law Commission of India and consequently the Law Commission recommended fixing a maximum period of 60 days for completing investigations and that recommendation came to be enacted as the law in the Cr.P.C. of 1973. Subsequently, this period was also found to be insufficient for completing investigations into more serious offences and, as mentioned above, the period for completing investigations was bifurcated into 90 days for some offences and 60 days for the remaining offences.

29. Notwithstanding this, the basic legislative intent of completing investigations within twenty-four hours and also within an otherwise time-bound period remains unchanged, even though that period has been extended over the years. This is an indication that in addition to giving adequate time to complete investigations, the Legislature has also and always put a premium on personal liberty and has always felt that it would be unfair to an accused to remain in custody for a prolonged or indefinite period. It is for this reason and also to hold the investigating agency accountable that time limits have been laid down by the Legislature. There is a legislative appreciation of the fact that certain offences require more extensive and intensive investigations and, therefore, for those offences punishable with death or with imprisonment for life or a minimum sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years, a longer period is provided for completing investigations.

44. Strong words indeed. That being so we are of the clear opinion that adapting this principle, it would equally be the duty and responsibility of a court on coming to know that the accused person before it is entitled to ‘default bail’, to at least apprise him or her of the indefeasible right. A contrary view would diminish the respect for personal liberty, on which so much emphasis has been laid by this Court as is evidenced by the decisions mentioned above, and also adverted to in Nirala Yadav.

(Emphasis added).

11. The above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court though is not related to preventive detention case, the importance of indefeasible right of default bail available to the accused who is in custody for a period of 60/90 days, as the case may be, after filing of charge-sheet has been reiterated keeping in view the basic human right of personal liberty, which is also part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such being the importance of default bail, which is indefeasible right to the person in custody, the same cannot be allowed to be curtailed in a casual manner unless there are some compelling reasons.

12. It would be opposed to all canons of justice if power of preventive detention is allowed to be resorted to in order to deprive the detenu of his statutory benefit available under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The benefit available under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be taken away by resorting to draconian preventive laws. However, there cannot be any hard and fast rule laid down to say that a detention order cannot be passed under any circumstances when the detenu has the possibility of being released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. There should be some compelling reasons apart from the fact that the detenu/accused has the possibility of being released on default/mandatory bail. To be precise, mere possibility of detenu being released on default bail cannot be a sole circumstance to pass the detention order unless there are compelling reasons. The Hin’ble High Court of Delhi in SANJAY AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2018 SCC ONLINE DEL 10814)held at paras 35 to 40 as follows:

“……With there being no bail application pending as such, the only reason for the apprehension of his release was the fact that the statutory period of 60 days after his arrest was coming to an end which meant that under Section 167 Cr PC, he would be entitled to a statutory bail.

36. The question, therefore, is whether that is a sufficient ground for invoking the extraordinary measure of preventive detention. In light of the decision in Rekha (supra), this question is no longer res integra. It was observed therein that preventive detention is not meant to be punitive and should only be used in exceptional cases and not as a substitute for the regular criminal law.

37. That the customs authorities were inefficient in ensuring that the challan against the detenue is filed in time, i.e. within 60 days after his arrest, will not mean that the power of preventive detention could be exercised. This would otherwise encourage an undesirable practice of the law enforcement agency allowing the detention of a detenue to continue till the statutory period under Section 167 Cr PC is set to expire, and then after failing to file a challan, mechanically invoke the power of preventive detention in the eleventh hour.

38. The Supreme Court in Moideen Koya (supra) has no doubt observed that a preventive detention order may be passed even against a person already in custody but as noted therein, the law in this regard has been explained in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate AIR 1964 SC 334 as under:

"As an abstract proposition of law, there may not be any doubt that Section 3(1) (a) does not preclude the authority from passing an order of detention against a person whilst he is in detention or in jail, but the relevant facts in connection with the making of the order may differ and that may make a difference in the application of the principle that a detention order can be passed against a person in jail."

39. The Supreme Court in Moideen Koya (supra) also made reference to the decision in Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1982) 2 SCC 43 wherein it was observed:

"If the detenu is already in jail charged with a serious offence, he is thereby prevented from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. Maybe, in a given case there yet may be the need to order preventive detention of a person already in jail. But in such a situation the detaining authority must disclose awareness of the fact that the person against whom an order of preventive detention is being made is to the knowledge of the authority already in jail and yet for compelling reasons a preventive detention order needs to be made."

40. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Respondents to make out the “compelling reasons? that necessitated a preventive detention order to be passed in respect of Mr. Sanjay Agarwal even though all his previous bail applications had been rejected and there was no pending bail application qua him. In the considered view of the Court, the imminent possibility of the detenu being entitled to statutory bail was not a “compelling? reason to invoke the extraordinary power of preventive detention.

In another judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in SHASHI GOYAL Vs. UOI & OTHERS (2008 (101) DRJ 696 (DB)it was observed as under:

4. In the factual matrix of the present case we cannot over-emphasise the need to explain the necessity and the expediency of the preventive detention of the Detenu, keeping in mind that he had become entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC as a Challan had not been filed within sixty days of his arrest. There is a plethora of precedents to the effect that such detention cannot be clamped down in pique, only because the Detenu has been enlarged on bail by a competent Court. Indeed, it would sound the deathknell of the Fundamental Right of personal liberty if preventive detention can be resorted to simply because the State is unable to complete its investigation and present a Challan within the statutory period of sixty/ninety days as the case may be. Section 167(2) of the Cr. PC would be subverted. Wherever and whenever such action manifests itself, courts of law would stamp it out swiftly and completely.

13. An order of detention has to be resorted to as an extreme and last step only when attempts made by the authorities to deal with and prosecute the detenu under ordinary law do not yield results. The preventive detention laws cannot be invoked as an easy way of bypassing the ordinary law. If detention order is passed, it is very imperative for the detaining authority to apply its mind and to arrive at a conclusion that ordinary law is not capable of acting deterrent against the detenu. Thus, a detention order needs to be passed. (Refer to Rekha Vs. Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244).

14. Section 37 of the NDPS Act deals with power of the Court for grant of bail. As compared to Section 439 Cr.P.C. whereunder there is no strict mechanism as to the specific grounds on which the bail has to be granted, under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in ordinary circumstances, bail would not be granted by the Court, as the Court has to record a finding that the accused is not prima facie involved in commission of NDPS offence. The right to oppose a bail is given to the Public Prosecutor. Needless to say, the Public Prosecutor should place all relevant material/CD file before the concerned Court, and also apprise the Court about relevant circumstances under which the detenu was arrested, about the gravity of the offence, about the quantity of drug seized etc. All these facts weigh with the concerned Court while granting bail. It is obvious from the record that the concerned Court dismissed the bail application by considering the gravity of offence. The detaining authority has not considered the restrictions placed on the Courts under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail and on this ground also the detention order stood vitiated. In SAYED ABUL ALA v. UNION OF INDIA (2007) 15 SCC 208)the Supreme Court held as under:

“19. An application for bail is required to be filed and considered by the appropriate Court in terms of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but in cases involving the provisions of the NDPS Act, the detaining authority was required to take into consideration the restrictions imposed on the power of the court to grant bail having regard to the provisions of Section 37 thereof.

20. Section 37 reads as under:

“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) –

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under Section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless –

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”

The statute, thus, puts limitation on the jurisdiction of the court in the matter of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

grant of bail. They cannot be ignored by any Court of Law. Several decisions of this Court and of High Court operate in the field. 21. Proper application of mind on the part of the detaining authority must, therefore, be borne out from the order of detention. In cases where the detenu is in custody, the detaining authority not only should be aware of the said fact but there should be some material on record to justify that he may be released on bail having regard to the restriction imposed on the power of the Court as it may not arrive at the conclusion that there existed reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of such offence and that the detenu could not indulge in similar activity, if set at liberty. 22. The detaining authority furthermore is required to borne in mind that there exists a distinction between the “likelihood of his moving an application for bail” and “likelihood to be released on bail”. While arriving at his subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail, recording of the satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority that merely because an application for grant of bail had been filed, would not be enough. It would also not be sufficient compliance of the legal obligation that the detaining authority had informed himself that the detenu has retracted from his earlier confession.” 15. In the light of the above observations, this Court finds that the impugned order is passed without any application of mind and on extraneous grounds. Thus, the order of detention, passed by the second respondent, and the consequential order i.e., G.O.Rt.No.885 dated 13.05.2020, issued by the first respondent State, are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt. No.885, dated 13.05.2020 passed by the respondent No.1 are, hereby, set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenu, namely Badavath Kishan, S/o. Tharya, at liberty forthwith, in case he is no longer detained in the criminal cases which have been registered so far against him. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-09-2020 Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla & Another Versus National Law School of India University, Bengaluru & Others Supreme Court of India
17-09-2020 Advocate Thoufeek Ahamed Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary (Justice), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
31-08-2020 M/s Progressive Construction Ltd., Muzaffarpur Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-08-2020 Prabhakar Gwal Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
29-07-2020 Saju Nambadan, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (LAW), Ernakulam & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Kammampathi Venkanna Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration (Spl (Law & Order) Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-06-2020 Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Represented by its Chief Law Officer & Others Versus H.S. Pankaja & Others High Court of Karnataka
16-06-2020 Pia Singgh Versus National Law University Delhi High Court of Delhi
11-06-2020 G. Gnaneshwar Versus The State of A.P., rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB, Hyderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-05-2020 Rapolu Bhaskar Versus The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary Law Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
13-05-2020 A. Mohammed Hussain & Others Versus State by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-05-2020 Yolandi Hewetson Versus The Law Society of The Free State Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
25-03-2020 Harry Memelink Versus Collins & May Law Court of Appeal of New Zealand
27-02-2020 Gayathri Chinna Nallasamy Versus The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University represented by its Registrar Perungudi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Mallika Versus Union of India Represented by its Secretary to Government Ministry of Law, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-02-2020 P. Sellaperumal & Others Versus Union of India Rep. by The Secretary to Government (Law), Government of Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 John K. Illikkadan Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Justice, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
04-02-2020 S. Santhanagopal & Others Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Law & Company Affairs Shastri Bhavan New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Ajay Ramesh Dinode Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary and Legal Remembrance, Law & Judicial Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-01-2020 Kaish Impex Private Limited (Through its Director – Deepak Kumar Goyal) Versus The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, Branch Secretariat & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-01-2020 State of rep by its CBI., by its Spl. PP Hyd. Versus Ramavatar Chirania High Court of Andhra Pradesh
02-01-2020 The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Mysuru Rural Division, Rep. by its Chief Law Officer Versus Devadas High Court of Karnataka
21-12-2019 E. Viswanatha Rao Versus A.O.,Spl.Tahsildar, Chittoor High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-12-2019 K.S. Jagadeep Versus The State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary Department of Law Justice & Human Rights Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
18-12-2019 Refex Energy Ltd., Through its Managing Director, Madurai Versus Union of India, Through its Secretary (Legislative), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-12-2019 C. Raja Versus The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Taramani High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-12-2019 Ramesh Baburao Firode Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-12-2019 Vincent Raja Versus The State by The Inspector of Police, (Law and Order) K-2, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 Anil Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Law & Justice Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-11-2019 Himanshu & Others Versus University of Delhi, Faculty of Law through Registrar High Court of Delhi
15-11-2019 R. Ravikumar & Others Versus The Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Notary Cell), Represented by the Joint Secretary & Legal Adviser & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-11-2019 K. Vignesh Kumar Versus The Director of Legal Studies, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-10-2019 Karma Enterprises, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Managing Partner K.M. Sasidharan Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Deputy Commissioner (Law, Commercial Taxes), Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
17-10-2019 The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintending Engineer(H), Thanjavur Versus SPL Infrastructure Private Limited (formerly S.P. Lakshmanan), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-10-2019 The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Represented by its Registrar, 'Poompoozhil', Chennai Versus The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Represented by its Assistant Registrar, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-10-2019 Prakash, Puducherry & Others Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government (Law), Government of Puducherry & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
03-10-2019 K. Mahalakshmi Versus The Registrar, Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-09-2019 K. Sreedhar Rao Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi Supreme Court of India
30-08-2019 M. Prasad Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Courts-A) Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-08-2019 In Re Missing of An Llm Student at Swami Shukdevanand Law College (SS Law College) From Shahjahanpur U.P. Supreme Court of India
28-08-2019 K. Sangeetha Versus The TamilNadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Represented by its Registrar, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-08-2019 State of Kerala, Represented by deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Law), State Goods & Service Tax Department, Ernakulam Versus Raphel T. Joseph High Court of Kerala
21-08-2019 Soundarajan @ Soundar & Another Versus The State, Represented by The Inspector of Police(Law & Order), Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2019 High Ground Enterprises Ltd. Versus Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Branch Secretariat & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-08-2019 John Llewellyn Stanley Versus New Zealand Law Society Court of Appeal of New Zealand
05-08-2019 Madhavi Dattatrai Thaly Versus The Secretary (Law), Secretariat, Alto-Porvorim & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
05-08-2019 Ashok Kumar Versus The Director General of Police (Law & Order) Kerala, Police Head Quarters, Vellayambalam, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
24-07-2019 Noorul Hithaya Beevi Versus The Chairman, 5 year B.A.LL.B.Degree Course Admission, 2018-2019, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Poompozhil, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-07-2019 Ravi Versus State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, (Law & Order) Police Station, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-07-2019 N. Vishnu Kumar & Another Versus The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar, Law University, Rep. by its Director of Legal Studies, Kilpauk, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-07-2019 Rapolu Mahalakshmi Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Administration (Law and Order) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-07-2019 The Caritas India, Rep. by Diocesan Director Fr.Anthony Raj Versus Union of India, Department of Law and Justice, Rep by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-06-2019 The National Law University, Jodhpur Versus Prashant Mehta & Others Supreme Court of India
20-06-2019 T. Rohin Versus KMCT Law College, Kuttipuram, Malappuram, Represented by Its Principal & Others High Court of Kerala
18-06-2019 Mara Venkata Lingam Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary, Law Department & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-06-2019 S. Jeyanthi Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-05-2019 M. Mohammed Mohsin Versus The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-04-2019 Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa Versus State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Law Department, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
22-04-2019 Sp. SPL. 30, Viswanatham Primary, Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Rep. by its Special Officer, Virudhunagar Versus R. Radha & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-04-2019 John Llewellyn Stanley Versus The New Zealand Law Society Court of Appeal of New Zealand
16-04-2019 Ram Awadh Versus Competent Authority/Spl. Land High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-04-2019 Shiv Shyam Versus Competent Authority/Spl Land Acquisition Officer, Barabanki High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
08-04-2019 Praveen Chand Shrivastava Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Law & Legislature, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
01-04-2019 Gunanka Churn Law Versus Bob Cards Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
29-03-2019 Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Chief Law Officer Versus G.N. Cheluvegowda High Court of Karnataka
27-03-2019 Ballarpur Industries Limited, through M.S. Pradeep, DGM Law, Gurgaon Versus Karapara Project Engineering, by its POA Hariharan Potti, Surat & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-03-2019 ABF Abdullah Faizee Versus The Inspector of Police, Law & Order, Cuddalore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-03-2019 P. Prathap Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Law Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-03-2019 Dr. P. Shanthi & Others Versus Inspector of Police, Law & Order, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-03-2019 Jangili Sagar & Others Versus State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Legal Affairs, Legislative Affairs & Justice, Law Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-03-2019 B. Babu & Others Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Principal Secretary Law Department, Chennai Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2019 The High Court Employees Association, Represented by its General Secretary Sanasam Shamungou Singh VersusThe State of Manipur through the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur & Others High Court of Manipur
20-02-2019 The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Represented by its Registrar & Another Versus Dr. D. Sankar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2019 P. Sathish @ Sathish Kumar Versus State, Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Law & Order, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2019 Karanam Janaki Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Administration Department (Law and Order), Guntur District, A.P. & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-02-2019 Letter dated 6.1.2019 sent by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates' Association represented by its President Versus Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Central Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-02-2019 Nagendra Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2019 M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (SPL) & Another Supreme Court of India
21-01-2019 John D'Souza Versus Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Chief Law Officer High Court of Karnataka
21-01-2019 The Managing Director, Represented by its Chief Law Officer Versus M.S. Bhaskar High Court of Karnataka
28-12-2018 K. Kiran Kumar & Others Versus State of Telangana, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Administration (Law & Order) Department & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
15-12-2018 H.C. Narayana Reddy Versus Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
12-12-2018 Dr. P.D, Divya, Assistant Professor (On Contract), Department of Veterinary Biochemistry, College of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Mannuthy & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Its Special Secretary To Government, Law (Legislation (I) Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
11-12-2018 The Law Society of The Northern Provinces Versus Pule Abram Morobadi Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
06-12-2018 Jayasree Versus The Union of India, Rep. by The Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice Department, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
04-12-2018 M.K. Hassan Versus The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-11-2018 C.A. Ali Kunj & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
28-11-2018 Komara Subrahmanyam & Others Versus State of AP rep by its Spl PP For ACB High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-11-2018 S. Anbazhagan Versus The Sub Inspector of Police, (Law and Order), Puducherry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-11-2018 R. Mani Senior Correspondent India Today Tamil Weekly Versus The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order ?H) Department Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-11-2018 Dr. J. Muralidhar Goud Versus The State of Telangana rep by its Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-11-2018 State of Kerala, Representd by Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes Department, Ernakulam Versus M/s. Bharathi Airtel Limited, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
31-10-2018 K.N. Ramesh Babu Versus The Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
31-10-2018 K.N. Ramesh Babu Versus The Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-10-2018 The Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Through its Managing Director, The appellant is rept. by its Chief Law Officer Versus Raghavendra High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
12-10-2018 A Suo Moto Taken Writ Petition Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Law & Legislative Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan, Chhattisgarh. High Court of Chhattisgarh
11-10-2018 Malla Krishna Rao, Law Officer, JIPMER, Pondicherry Versus Dr. M.K. Bhan, President of JIPMER, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
10-10-2018 Nuthulapati Naga Basweshwer Rao Versus The State of Telangana rep by its Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
08-10-2018 Varaaki Versus The State, Rep. by the Secretary Ministry of Law, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-09-2018 Ito Ward 3, Namakkal Versus Sl(Spl) 151 Karkoodalpatty Paccs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai