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



Badri Narayan Sharma v/s Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur


Company & Directors' Information:- B S AND SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92419MH1946PTC004912

Company & Directors' Information:- S C SHARMA AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1948PTC001507

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035620

Company & Directors' Information:- K P SHARMA (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1988PTC045569

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

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- NARAYAN [Strike Off] CIN = U00111KA2006PTC390000

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICE CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U93090KL1946PLC001075

Company & Directors' Information:- BADRI & CO (PVT) LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1948PTC016374

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- NARAYAN E-SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80904BR2011PTC017921

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

    Customs Appeal No. 50493 of 2017 (SM) & Final Order No. 50008 of 2020

    Decided On, 08 January 2020

    At, Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Jatin Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondent: K. Poddar, Authorised Representative.



Judgment Text


1. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No. 1068/2016 dated 22.12.2016 is assailed vide the present appeal. The facts relevant for the purpose in brief are as follows

2. In furtherance of a specific information about a person with smuggled gold that on 02.06.1999 a person namely, Shayam Lal Pal, Son of Rampal was stopped outside the Railway station, Bikaner. From the pocket of his trousers 3 pieces of gold weighing 5 grams each alongwith a slip dated 01.06.1999 and a railway ticket No. 148344 from Delhi to Bikaner was recovered. Also from his clothbelt were recovered 10 biscuits of 10 grams each. Said Shyam Lal Pal could not produce any valid document/bill showing the lawful possession of the gold as recovered.

3. The department considered the recovered gold as smuggled one. Accordingly, seized it under Section 110 of Customs Act and served a notice of confiscation thereof under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962. In the statement of Shyam Lal Pal as was recorded on 02.06.1999 itself, he stated that the said gold was given to him by his owner, Mr. Gopal Sita, owner of Shop No. 668 , Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk on 01.06.1999 with the directions to deliver the same to Shri Shyam Sunder Soni of Thakuro Ka Mohalla, Bikaner. However, said Shri Gopal Sita on being interrogated denied any affiliation with Shyam Lal Pal. Shyam Sunder Soni statement could be recorded only on 22.06.1999 that to in furtherance of directions of Additional Session Judge, Jodhpur who stated Shyam Lal to be the servant of Shri Badri Narayan Sharma of M/s Dhancholia Sons. He also stated that he placed an order for gold with said Shri Badri Narayan Sharma. Statement of Shri Badri Narayan Sharma was also got recorded on 04.08.1999 who stated about giving the 10 gold bars with Bill No. 3 dated 01.06.1999 to Shri Shyam Lal Pal to deliver the same to Shyam Sunder Soni at Bikaner. Thus based upon said investigation the show cause notice proposing confiscation of seized goods and for imposition of penalty was served upon all the above named persons.

4. The said show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-inOriginal No. 03/2000 dated 23.03.2000 as was passed by Additional Commissioner (Customs), Jodhpur Rajasthan ordering confiscation of 10 gold biscuits weighing 100 grams and 3 pieces of gold weighing 5 grams. Simultaneously, proposing penalty on all the noticees. The said order was assailed before Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 566-569 dated 31.08.2004 has upheld the order of confiscation, however, had reduced the penalty by 50%. Still an appeal was preferred by Shri Badri Narayan Sharma before this Tribunal which was allowed vide Order No. A/523378/2015 SM dated 04.08.2015 with the directions to the adjudicating authority to release the impugned goods to the Appellant therein i.e. Shri Badri Narayan Sharma.

5. Consequent to the said order that an application dated 18.09.2015 was filed by the Appellant seeking release of the seized goods. The said application was adjudicated by the Order bearing No.01/Refund/2015. dated 14.12.2015. It was observed that Dy. Commissioner, by the said order, had sanctioned an amount of Rs. 4,84,545/- the value of sales proceeds of 10 gold biscuits and 3 pieces of gold in favour of the Appellant. The Appellant being aggrieved filed an appeal challenging the order on the ground that the original adjudicating authority has committed the contempt for not obeying the order of CESTAT dated 04.08.2015 vide which the seized gold was ordered to be released. The sale proceeds of the seized gold as on 26.03.2001 were alleged to be illegal and improper and contrary to the aforesaid verdict. However, the appeal thereof was also rejected. Consequent thereto the Appellant is before this Tribunal.

6. We have heard Shri Jatin Mahajan, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. K. Poddar, learned AR for the Department, it is submitted that department had not followed any procedure for the disposal of the gold and the said fact has been admitted by the department vide their letter dated 16.03.2018. It is further emphasized that as per the procedure laid down in Customs Preventive Manual, department is duty bound to issue notice to the owner or to the person from whom such goods were recovered. In the present case admittedly, no such notice was issued. The disposal of the gold, therefore, is bad in law. Appellant, therefore, is entitled either for the return of the gold seized. Finally, submitting that irrespective there was the dispute regarding the ownership of the goods, the procedure laid down for disposal of the goods as per Department's manual was strictly to be followed. The failure thereof entitles the Appellant to have the present market value of the gold disposed of. Order under challenge is, accordingly, prayed to be set aside, appeal is prayed to be allowed.

7. Per contra learned DR has submitted that the initial show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order dated 23.03.2000 the confiscation of the seized gold was confirmed vide Order-in-Appeal No. 566- 569/2004 dated 31.08.2004. It is further submitted that there was ambiguities about the ownership of the gold. Initially, vide Order dated 13.05.2005 Shri Narayan Sharma was held to be the owner of the gold seized. Subsequently, a miscellaneous application was filed by Shri Badri Narayan Sharma who filed an appeal before this Tribunal in the year 2005 against the order of Commissioner Appeals dated 31.08.2004. The Tribunal observed that the appeal of Badri Narayan Sharma has already been disposed of vide Order dated 13.05.2005. This created a doubt in the mind of the Bench about as to who is real Badri Narayan Sharma. Matter was, accordingly, referred to identify the real Badri Narayan Sharma. It is thereafter that the order dated 04.08.2015 was passed. Since the goods were seized as early as on 02.06.1999 and were confiscated vide Order in original dated 23.03.2000 that the department undertook the process of disposal of seized/confiscated goods. It is due to this reason that the order dated 04.08.2015 of this Tribunal directing the release of impugned goods to the Appellant could not be complied with. However, in furtherance thereof the amount of sale proceeds as was received at the time of disposal of confiscated goods was released to the Appellant vide Cheque No. 109003 dated 11.12.2015 for an amount of Rs. 4,84,585/- which has already been encashed by the Appellant on 11.01.2016. Impressing upon that the disposal of seized gold was absolutely in furtherance of the procedure as prescribed under the statute and the department manual and that there is no infirmity in the order upholding the sanction of sale proceeds while complying the order of this Tribunal dated 04.08.2015, the appeal is, accordingly, prayed to be dismissed.

8. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the entire record, I am of the opinion that the moot question to be adjudicated herein is as to Whether in view of the given facts and circumstances and the order of this Tribunal dated 04.08.2015, the appellant is entitled to receive the market value of the gold as prevalent for the year 2015 despite that the said gold was disposed of in the year 2001 for value of Rs. 4,84,585/-.

To adjudicate the same the notification No. 31/1986- Customs dated 05.02.1986 as has been brought to the notice by the department is hereby perused. This notification specifies the goods which have to be dealt with in accordance of Section 110(1A) of Customs Act, 1962. The same reads as follows:

(1A) The Central Government may, having regard to the perishable or hazardous nature of any goods, depreciation in the value of the goods with the passage of time, constraints of storage space for the goods or any other relevant considerations, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the goods or class of goods which shall, as soon as may be after its seizure under sub-section (1), be disposed of by the proper officer in which manner as the Central Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.

From this notification it is apparent that gold in all forms, including bullions, ingot, coin, ornament, crude jewellery is one of the specified goods therein.

9. Further it is observed that the gold was seized on 02.06.1999, the order of confiscation was announced on 23.03.2000. The aforesaid provision permits the disposal of seized goods. In the present case pursuant to the said seizure the original adjudicating authority had confirmed the confiscation where after only the department proceeded for disposal of goods, it being one of the specified goods, in terms of the notification as passed under Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act.

10. I further observe that Section 1B of 110 of Customs Act provides a procedure to be undertaken by the proper officers for disposal of the goods. It is apparent from record that the said procedure was also duly followed by the department as the inventory of the seized goods was got prepared on 02.06.1999 on the date of seizure itself. The same was also got verified by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)- Cum-Judicial-Magistrate, Bikaner that too twice i.e. on 03.06.1999 and also on 16.05.2000. Thereafter the impugned goods were deposited in the Malkhana of New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi on 13.07.2000 from where the gold was handed over to State Bank of India (SBI) on 20.03.2001 for disposal which was ultimately sold by SBI on 26.03.2001 for an amount of Rs. 4,84,545/. This particular perusal is clear enough to show that the disposal of goods was very much in compliance of the statutory procedure. Otherwise also there is always a presumption of correctness in the act of discharge of duty by a competent officer as was held by Tribunal, Chennai in the case of Ajanta Music Palace Vs. Collector of Customs reported as 1993 (68) ELT 414. There is no evidence produced by the Appellant to rebutt the said presumption.

11. It is further perused that the order of confiscation of year 2000 was confirmed by Commissioner Appeals vide the order dated 31.08.2004, it is mentioned by the department that at the time of the said adjudication before Commissioner Appeals, the factum of disposal was brought to the notice of the Appellant. Though the said order is not on record. However, it is simultaneously not the case of the Appellant that the disposal of gold during pendency of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was ever objected by the Appellant. The said order of 31.08.2004 was assailed by Appellant before this Tribunal vide his appeal No. C/254/2005. There also the present Appellant except highlighting the controversy of his mistaken identity had failed to challenge the disposal of the seized gold.

12. It is coming apparent from the order of 24.07.2015 of this Tribunal that the order of appeal dated 31.08.2004 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the confiscation was earlier appealed by Shri Badri Narayan Sharma on 31.08.2004 was already assailed by Shri Badri Narayan Sharma and the said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 13.05.2005. Appellant had put no effort to place on record the copy of the previous appeal to prove that the disposal of the seized gold either was never brought to his notice or ever was challenged by him. There is no denial of Shyam Lal Pal admittedly the servant of the present Appellant to have received the notice at the time of the disposal of the seized goods. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the disposal of the seized goods was absolutely in accordance of the statutory provisions. The order of return of seized gold has been announced 14 years later than the said disposal. What can be returned while complying with the directions of return of seized gold is the sale proceeds of the said gold received at the time of disposal thereof. Also it is apparent that present appellant was held owner of the seized |& confiscated gold vide order of this Tribunal dated 13.05.2005. Time taken till the order of Tribunal dated 24.07.2015 directing the return of the impugned gold is on account of mistaken identity of Shri Badri Narayan the appellant himself. The order of confiscation was otherwise served on Shyam Lal Pal as well as Shri Badri Narayan who was held owner of the impugned gold vide order of the year 2005. The said Badri Narayan impersonated the actual Badri Narayan whose appeal was decided in his favour in the year 2015 does not reflect any mistake or even delay on part of Department. It is already held that they followed due procedure for disposal of said gold in the year 2001.

13. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Shabbir Ahmed Abdul Rehman Vs. Union of India reported as 2009 (35) ELT 402 has held that when the confiscated gold was handed over for disposal immediately after serving the order of confiscation thereof. The sale of the said gold during the pendency of appeal before Commissioner Appeals is though not justified. However, the claim of the petitioner in seeking the market value of gold cannot be accepted. The Customs Authority is liable to return the entire sale proceeds, however, without deducting there from the duty. In the present case the gold was sold after the confirmation of confiscation and prior the appeal challenging the same was filed. The said order of Bombay High court has been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme court vide the decision reported as 2010(253)ELT A142 Tribunal Ahmedabad also in the case of Om Merchant Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Lucknow 2017(358) ELT 643 has held that the appellant therein to be entitled for immediate release of their confiscated goods. It was, simultaneously, held that in case the goods have been auction sold in meantime, the Appellant shall be entitled to sale proceeds of the same in accordance with law. The plea of Appellant of no no

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

tice being served before disposal is otherwise not acceptable in view of the admitted mistaken identity of the owner of the gold. Admittedly and apparently, two different persons representing them as Badri Narayan Sharma filed the appeal challenging the order of confiscation of the goods, as discussed above. 14. In the given circumstances and in the light of the fact that gold is a commodity the value where of has been increased enormously since the date of impugned disposal in the year 2001 till the date of the order of return in the year 2015 and that there is no apparent fault on part of the department while disposing the same. The department rather has duly complied with the order of return of confiscated goods of the year 2015 by refunding the sale proceeds of the gold as was received in the year 2001. The said amount has duly been encashed by the Appellant that to more than a year prior filing of the impugned appeal. 15. As a result the question framed herein above is answered with the finding that in the given facts & circumstance, the order of this Tribunal dated 04.08.2015 stands duly complied with when department returned the sale proceeds of impugned gold as were received in the year 2001 when this gold was auction sold. Thus the appellant is not held entitled for the gold as such nor for its market value as prevalent in the year 2015. Seen from any angle, there is opined no infirmity in the order under challenge. The appeal in hand has no legal ground to succeed. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

05-10-2020 T.K. David Versus Kuruppampady Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
24-09-2020 Narayan Giri Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
23-09-2020 Charu Sharma & Others Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Maharshtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-09-2020 Arun Sharma Versus Roxann Sharma In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
10-09-2020 Hriday Narayan Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
09-09-2020 Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service, Rep. by its Authorized Representative J. Anjananandan Versus The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Arun Kumar Sharma Versus Adesh Goel & Others High Court of Delhi
07-09-2020 Suneeta Sharma Versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Punjab & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-09-2020 The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai Versus P. Muthian High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus State Public Service Tribunal Thru.Chairman & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 Audumber Narayan Wadadekar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
31-08-2020 Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Kumar Versus C.B.I. High Court of Delhi
26-08-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nand Kishore Sharma & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
25-08-2020 Abhishek Sharma @ Chanchal Pandit Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-08-2020 Ram Narayan Mandal @ Ram Ratan Mandal Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
24-08-2020 ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Through Manager, Rajasthan Versus Ram Prakash Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Gauhati
21-08-2020 H.N. Sharma & Anr versus Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2020 Narayan Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-08-2020 Venkateshvara Logistics Fleet, Represented by its Authorized Representative Rachya, Hubballi Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bijapur Division, Vijayapur High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
18-08-2020 Goods & Service Tax Network Versus Information Commissioner, Cic & Anr High Court of Delhi
14-08-2020 Nipun Sharma Versus Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
14-08-2020 T.V. Maniyappan & Another Versus Pattanakkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
14-08-2020 Union of India & Another Versus M/s. K.C. Sharma & Co. & Others Supreme Court of India
13-08-2020 P. Balamurugan Versus The Controller of Examinations, The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma V/S Rakesh Sharma and Others. Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 V.P. Sharma & Others Versus Dr. G.S. Kochar Surgeon Urologist) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-08-2020 Vijay Ramswarup Sharma Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
07-08-2020 Syed Ahmar Ali Hasmi Versus Union Public Service Commission, through Secretary Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
06-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Kailash Chand Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-08-2020 M/s. Siti Cable Network Ltd. & Another Versus Commissioner of Service Tax & Another Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
04-08-2020 The Managing Committee, (Under Order of Suspension), The Vellathooval Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Represented by Its President Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Office of The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Idukki & Others High Court of Kerala
31-07-2020 M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd., Cement Grinding Unit, Kancheepuram Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (South Zonal Bench), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2020 The Karassery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kozhikode, Represented by Its General Manager Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Co-Operative Societies, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
29-07-2020 S. Sachin Narayan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-07-2020 M/s. Sainath Security Force & Man Power Service, Represented by its Proprietor B.S. Mannur Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Under Secretary, Bangaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
27-07-2020 Manish Sharma & Another Versus Urmila Arora High Court of Delhi
24-07-2020 Narayan @ Jago Vishnubhai Raval Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 Lt. Col. Manish Narayan Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
16-07-2020 Cheriyan Mathew, Member, The Kanakkary Service Cooperative Bank Limited & Others Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Kottayam & Another High Court of Kerala
14-07-2020 M/s. Sanwaliya Tractor Sales & Service, Rajasthan & Others Versus Bhagwati Devi Bhatt & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-07-2020 Prabhat Ranjan Deo Versus Union Public Service Commission & Others High Court of Delhi
26-06-2020 Badri Prasad Jharia Versus Vatsalya Jharia High Court of Madhya Pradesh
24-06-2020 Tara Prasad Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
24-06-2020 M/s. Shiv Narayan Periwal & Sons, Punjab Versus Bharat Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-06-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Through The General Manager & Another Versus Narendra Kumar Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-06-2020 Ashok Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
19-06-2020 Sri Bhagavathy Dyes & Chemicals, Kochi, Represented by Its Proprietor, B. Ravindranath Versus Alleppey Parcel Service, Alappuzha, Represented by T.T. Kuruvila, Proprietor & Others High Court of Kerala
17-06-2020 Aman Sharma Versus The Chief Election Commissioner & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
15-06-2020 Rajan Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
11-06-2020 Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Versus State by Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
04-06-2020 Secretary, Keechery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Ernakulam Versus P.M. Sajitha Nizar Alias Sajitha & Others High Court of Kerala
04-06-2020 The Karnataka Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary Versus Dr. S.S. Madhukeshwara & Another High Court of Karnataka
02-06-2020 Prateek Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 Pappu Ram Jat Versus Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
30-05-2020 Kshitiz Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
22-05-2020 Dhiraj Milind Dhurve Versus Union Public Service Commission & Another High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service, Patna Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-05-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Ernakulam Versus M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Kochi Refinery, Ambalamugal, Represented by The Chief Finance Manager High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 Mukesh Sharma Versus C.V. Ramana High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-05-2020 Randhir Rambrij Sharma Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 Union of India Versus Narayan Chandra Jena & Another Supreme Court of India
06-05-2020 Kamla Sharma Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Anurag Sarmah @ Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
22-04-2020 Anand Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
22-04-2020 Deo Narayan Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
20-04-2020 Dr. Mahesh Sharma & Another Versus Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Rajasthan
17-04-2020 Shankar Sakharam Kenjale (Died) Through His Legal Heirs Versus Narayan Krishna Gade & Another Supreme Court of India
15-04-2020 Sanjeev Sharma Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
13-04-2020 Mamta Sharma & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-04-2020 Mohmmad Yunus Versus Madho Prasad Sharma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-03-2020 Prashant Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
24-03-2020 Narayan Baidyakar Versus The State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
23-03-2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others Versus Megha Sharma & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-03-2020 Anju Sharma Versus Sunita Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
19-03-2020 Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Others Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 Shambhu Prasad Sharma Advocate Versus Renu Jogi High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-03-2020 Saurav Sharma Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
17-03-2020 Aashu Pandit @ Aashu Bajpai @ Aash Narayan Sharma Versus Union of India High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
17-03-2020 P.B. Biju Versus The Managing Committee of The Vayyattupuzha Service Co-Operative Bank, Ltd No. Q 354, Represented by Its President, Pathanamthitta District & Others High Court of Kerala
13-03-2020 Unnati Bhardwaj & Another Versus K.P. Sharma High Court of Delhi
11-03-2020 Ajay Sharma & Others Versus Kulwant Singh High Court of Delhi
11-03-2020 Narayan & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
06-03-2020 Rampal Sharma & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
05-03-2020 M/s. N.K. Enterprise, West Bengal & Another V/S Narayan Prasad Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-03-2020 Sancha Bahadur Subba Versus Ramesh Sharma High Court of Sikkim
04-03-2020 State of Goa Versus Narayan V. Gaonkar & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Amitabh Versus Amit Rghunandan Saran Sharma & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Sharma Versus Nirmaldas Manikpuri High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-03-2020 Md. Waheed V/S The Telangana State Public Service Commission In The High Court Of State Of Telangana
03-03-2020 State of Goa Versus Narayan V. Gaonkar & Others Supreme Court of India
02-03-2020 Badri Prasad Mishra Versus Moti Singh High Court of Chhattisgarh
02-03-2020 M/s. Appease Apartment & Others Versus Sudip Narayan Ghosh & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata