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



Bhima Jewellery & Diamonds (P) Ltd., Chevayoor, Represented By Its Director Girirajan Balachandra Kiran, Kozhikode v/s O. Sandeep Kumar


Company & Directors' Information:- P & S JEWELLERY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36912MH1996PLC096788

Company & Directors' Information:- BHIMA JEWELLERY & DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52393KL2012PTC030557

Company & Directors' Information:- J. B. DIAMONDS LIMITED [Under Liquidation] CIN = U36911MH2007PLC172004

Company & Directors' Information:- R S DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27205MH2006PTC158969

Company & Directors' Information:- C I 2 JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27205MH2006PTC163558

Company & Directors' Information:- SANDEEP (INDIA) LTD [Active] CIN = L51491WB1982PLC035464

Company & Directors' Information:- L I D JEWELLERY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52393MH2001PTC131467

Company & Directors' Information:- A. A. JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U70100MH2002PTC137184

Company & Directors' Information:- A. M. DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC070594

Company & Directors' Information:- K. M. DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36911DL2012PTC231805

Company & Directors' Information:- V. JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74110MH2005PTC158303

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND T JEWELLERY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36911MH2005PTC158022

Company & Directors' Information:- KIRAN CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17290PB2013PTC037221

Company & Directors' Information:- B. V. DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36912MH2007PTC169744

Company & Directors' Information:- D. P. DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51420MH2009PTC193381

Company & Directors' Information:- JEWELLERY CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999TN1947PLC001076

Company & Directors' Information:- C D DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U26912MH1998PTC114161

Company & Directors' Information:- V. M. DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900MH2010PTC208824

Company & Directors' Information:- J B JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36910MH2003PTC140809

Company & Directors' Information:- B. R. DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36911MH2008PTC183975

Company & Directors' Information:- B S JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36911MH2004PTC148373

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. DIAMONDS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109GJ2010PTC059986

Company & Directors' Information:- S P T & JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51398TN2007PTC063798

Company & Directors' Information:- THE JEWELLERY CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36911RJ1944PTC000234

Company & Directors' Information:- J R T JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36996MH2015PTC270992

Company & Directors' Information:- V S JEWELLERY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36911TZ2012PTC018687

Company & Directors' Information:- M & S JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U36911TG2011PTC077959

Company & Directors' Information:- S V DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36911DL2011PTC215029

Company & Directors' Information:- S S DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52300DL2011PTC216098

Company & Directors' Information:- V. D. JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36911GJ2004PTC044357

Company & Directors' Information:- G M P JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52393KL2009PTC025175

Company & Directors' Information:- R. R. DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52393GJ2010PTC061444

Company & Directors' Information:- KIRAN AND COMPANY LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U36990MH1947PLC005467

    OP(C). No. 2797 of 2019

    Decided On, 24 June 2020

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    For the Petitioner: Abdul Raoof Pallipath, K.R. Avinash (Kunnath), Prajit Ratnakaran, E. Mohammed Shafi, Advocates. For the Respondent: R1, P.K. RAVISANKAR, Advocate.



Judgment Text


1. The law permits to either side in every trial - civil or criminal - opportunity to contradict a witness during cross examination and this has its hypostasis on Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.

2. Though the word is not so used, in usual paralance this is achieved by “confronting” a witness with a document or other relevant material while being subjected to cross examination.

3. This is what the petitioner herein - the plaintiff in O.S.No.159/2013 on the files of the Sub Court, Kannur - attempted by confronting the defendant, while he was deposing as a witness for his defence, with a new document; but which met with express disapproval from the Court, thus refusing to allow him to do so for the reason that the said document had not been produced on record earlier.

4. The petitioner assails the approach of the Trial Court as being contrary to law and unlawful; thus praying that the said Court be directed to “allow the petitioner to confront the document sought to be produced during cross examination of the respondent and permit the petitioner's counsel to ask questions based on the documents so produced” (sic)

5. As is perspicuous from the afore factual narration, the relevant aspects for evaluation by this Court is whether the Trial Court could have refused to allow the counsel for the petitioner to contradict the witness for the defendant with new documents never before produced before it; and whether the said documents ought to have been marked in evidence.

6. I have heard Sri.Mohammed Shafi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.K.Ravisankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. The primary contention of Sri.Mohammed Shafi, which is also available from paragraph 2 of this original petition, is that the petitioner/plaintiff was legally competent to confront the witness for the defendant with documents in his possession, but never formally produced; asserting that, by doing so, the witness would have been compelled to speak the truth, on account of the surprise element regarding its contents. The averments in paragraph 2 of this original petition, therefore, certainly require to be read, for which purpose, I extract it below:

“2. After settling the issue, the Court commenced evidence on 27.8.2019. The plaintiff's evidences were already over and the defendant's evidence was started on 16.10.2019. The defendant submitted proof affidavit and was ordered to be cross examined by deputing advocate commissioner. The cross examination was started on 16.10.2019 itself and continued the next day on 17.10.2019. In the process of cross examining defendant as DW1, the petitioner's counsel tried to ask certain pertinent questions with reference to a document in a bid elicit certain material aspects touching the contentious issues as well as to prove the veracity and integrity of the witness by showing the said document to witness that was not produced earlier along with the plaint or by separate IA for receiving additional documents. The attempt was to bring in evidence with reference to a document not produced before the court but falling under the scope and ambit of order 13 Rule 3 CPC.”

8. Sri.Mohammed Shafi, then proceeded to argue that Order XIII Rule 3 of the CPC, permits confrontation of a witness with a document not produced in Court, as per the mandate of Rule 1 of the said Order, at the time of cross examination of a witness and that the Trial Court has egregiously erred in not permitting his client to do so. Explaining the facts involved, he submitted that initially, the Court had deputed an Advocate Commissioner to examine the witness and that when one document, which had not been earlier produced in Court, was attempted to be marked by the petitioner/plaintiff by confronting him, it was objected to by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant and therefore, that the Commissioner stopped the cross examination and placed the matter before the Trial Court for appropriate orders. He says that this is evident from pages 11 and 12 of the deposition, a copy of which has been appended to this Original Petition as Ext.B3; and that, thereafter, the witness was again sworn by the Court for further cross examination, during which also such an endevour was made, but stopped by it, recording that “since the document is not produced before the Court answer is not recorded”.(sic)

9. Sri.Mohammed Shafi asserts that this stand of the Trial Court is contrary to Order XIII Rule 3 of the CPC and therefore, that the said Court must be directed to permit the petitioner to confront the witness again with the documents; and he cited the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Smt.Manorama Srivastava and another V. Smt. Saroj Srivastava [AIR 1989 Allahabad 17] in substantiation of this plea.

10. Sri.P.K.Ravisankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, in response, vehemently contested the submissions of Sri.Mohammed Shafi, both on facts and law, asserting that what has been attempted to be done by the petitioner before the Trial Court is a clear mischief, which is contrary to the prescriptions of Order XIII of the CPC. Sri.Ravisankar submitted that even a plain reading of the provisions of the said Order would make it indubitable that any document which is sought to be marked through a witness in cross examination must be produced in Court in the manner as is legally permitted and that the only difference between the manner of production of a document as per in Rules 1 and 3 of Order XIII of the CPC is that in the former case, the originals of the documents, sought to be marked, ought to be produced before the issues are settled under Order XIV Rule 1 of the CPC; while under the latter Rule, a document can be produced later, even at the time of the cross examination of a witness, provided leave is granted by the Court.

11. Sri. P.K. Ravisankar, further says that, in the case at hand, what was attempted by the learned counsel for the defendant, both before the learned Commissioner and the Trial Court, was to whip out a document from his possession and to confront the witness and thus seek it to be admitted and marked in evidence. He says that this attempt was clearly illegal, unlawful and therefore, that the Trial Court was without error in having rejected it. He thus prays that this original petition be dismissed.

12. Before I answer the legal aspects raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I must certainly notice that, through this original petition, the petitioner does not choose to challenge any order of the Trial Court but only prays that the cross examination of DW1 be ordered to be reopened, so as to have certain documents marked through him by confrontation. I am not sure whether he would obtain any benefit, as he expects, at this time even if this request is acceded to, since the witness is now aware of the document; but the legal question, whether the petitioner is entitled to do what he tried before the Trial Court, survives for this Court's evaluation.

13. To answer this, one will certainly need a glance through Order XIII Rules 1 of the CPC, to enable which, they are reproduced below:

“1. Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues.-

(1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement.

(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced; Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such from as the High Court directs.

(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents-

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”

14. The afore are not the only provisions in the CPC in this regard because Order VII Rule 14, as also order VIII Rule 1A also contain additional but similar prescription from the angle of the plaintiff and the defendant respectively. These provision therefore, will have to read along with Order XIII and are consequently extracted and shown below:

Order VII Rule 14

“14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies - (1) where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document int his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it its.

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff''s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

Order VIII Rule 1A

“1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him - (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”

15. As is perspicuous from the afore stipulations, Order VII Rule 14(1) and Order VIII Rule 1A (1) mandates that the plaintiff and defendant must produce the documents they intend to rely on by entering them in a list and delivering them, along with a copy, when the plaint and written statement respectively are filed in Court.

16. Going forward, Order VII Rule 14(3) and Order VIII Rule 1A (3) requires that a document not produced as above, be not received in evidence on the side of the party producing it, at the hearing of the suit, without the leave of the Court.

17. After the afore stipulations are so placed, Order XIII Rule 1(1) contains the common mandate applicable to either side and requires that the parties or their pleaders all documentary evidence in the original before settlement of the issues, in the suit, provided copies of such had been filed along with the plaint and the written statement. After postulating so, an exception to the above is carved out through Order VII Rule 14(4) Order VIII Rule 1A (4), and Order XIII Rule 1(3), whereby, in two circumstances alone documents are allowed to be used during trial, even though not produced earlier. These three provisions, which are identical in their tenor and phraseology employed, state that nothing in the main Rule shall apply to documents:

a) Provided for the cross examination of the witness of the other party

b) Handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

(to speak aside, there is a mistake in Order VII Rule 14(3) because instead of the “defendant's” witness it is incorrectly stated the “plaintiff's” witness therein. This was noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India [2005 (6) SCC 344] and it is ordered therein that until necessary and suitable amendment is brought in by the legislature, the word 'plaintiff's' in this Sub Rule will be read as 'defendant's”),

18. The law thus indubitably entitles a party to contradict a witness for the opposite side with a document not produced earlier or included in the list filed along with the plaint or the written statement respectively. This is rendered irrefragable since Order VII Rule 14(4), Order VIII Rule 1A (4) and Order XIII Rule 1(3)(a) carves an express exception to documents produced to cross examine the witness on the rival side.

19. The afore liberty is apodictically edificed on Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as under:

“145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing - A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.”

20. This Section permits the contradiction of a witness by confronting him with a previous statement made by him or reduced into writing, by calling his attention to it or its parts intended to be used for such purpose.

21. When the whole purpose is to contradict a witness, it becomes unnecessary to expatiate that the element of surprise is crucial. Axiomatically, it will be incongruous to even suggest that a document or statement used for such must be produced earlier, since the witness certainly will then modulate his response to it by pre-preparation. The very object of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act would be lost by it.

22. In derivation thus, the contention of the respondent/defendant, that only a document which is earlier produced in Court by a party can be used by him to contract witness for the opposite side, can evidently find no jural support.

23. This being said, I am fully cognizant that Sri.P.K.Ravisankar, learned counsel for the respondent is relying on the word “produced” appearing in Order VII Rule 14(4), Order VIII Rule 1A (4) and Order XIII Rule 1(3)(a) to predicate that this means that the document used for cross examining the witness must also be filed in Court as per the usual procedure. He attempted to draw a distinction between the two exception clauses in these Orders, one which allows handing over a document to a witness to refresh his memory and the production of one to confront him during cross examination. Based on this distinction in the words used in these orders, he argued that only a document used to refresh the memory of a witness can be shown to him, while to contact him in cross examination, the same will have to be first produced in Court, albeit, even at the time of trial.

24. There can be no argument that the words “handing order” and “production” are used in the exception clauses in the afore Orders of the CPC. The reason for this, in my definite view, is not as contended by Sri.Ravisankar but because contradiction of a witness during cross examination and refreshing of his memory remain on totally different footing. In the former, the document is marked and entered in evidence, subject to its relevance and admissibility; while in the latter it is not.

25. When I say as afore, this Court becomes enjoined to declare what is meant by “production” used in the afore Rules, because Courts sometimes, like in this case, appear to think this means that the document will have to be produced in the manner as provided in Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, before it can be put to the witness.

26. As noticed in the main provisions of Order VII Rule 14, Order VIII Rule 1A and Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC, the parties are to produce the documents they rely on, entering them in a list, along with the plaint or written statement and, in any event, before the settlement of issues for trial. However, the Sub Rules carving the exception to this make it limpid that nothing contained in main Rule will apply to a document produced for cross examination of the witness for the other side. Therefore, even though the word “produced” is used commonly in both the main Rules and the Sub Rules carving the exception, its tenor will have to be differently interpreted.

27. This is undoubtedly so since the main Rules speaks of production of documents by parties on which they intend to rely, which normally, would be to mean those which are sought to be led into evidence through their own witness. In contradistinction, a document used to cross examine or contradict a witness for the other side can be put to such witness only based on his/her testimony. Logically, therefore, such a document cannot be produced earlier, but will have to be put to the witness during cross examination to obtain a contradiction of his earlier statement. This is why the element of surprise is vital.

28. In such confines, the production of a document under Order VII Rule 14(4), Order VIII Rule 1A (4) and Order XIII Rule 1(3)(a) of the CPC, axiomatically, will have to be construed to happen when it is physically put to the witness during cross examination and when the Court then receives it on record. Hence no Court can refuse a document being put to a witness during cross examination merely for the reason that it had not been produced earlier or not produced as per the manner in which it ought to have been normally produced.

29. The afore so concluded, an adjunct question arises as to how the Trial Court should deal with a document produced at the cross examination of a witness. The answer to this is fairly easy when the witness admits the document - the Court then will mark it and admit it in evidence, subject to its relevance and probative value.

30. But, if the witness denies the document, then what happens? Should the document be returned to the party which produced it or should the Court retain it?. This, again, is not to difficult to answer because the document certainly will have to be marked, though not admitted to evidence, and retained on file so as to enable the Court to subsequently, identify it, with reference to the question put to the witness when it was produced, while assessing the evidence and finally deciding the suit. This is more because, it is now too well settled for restatement that the mere marking of a document as an exhibit, be that by use of alphabets or numbers, is only for the purpose of its identification and has no relation with its proof.

31. My views as above are in conformity with the holdings of the Hon'ble Alahabad High Court in Manorama Srivastava (supra) cited by Sri.Mohammed Shafi, learned counsel for the petitioner and am aware that the Delhi High Court has also spoken on the same lines in Subhash Chander v. Shri Bhagwan Yadav (CM(M) No.171/2009)

32. The forensic opinion of this Court being declared as afore, which is in favour of the contentions of the petitioner, I will now see whether the petitioner would, even then, obtain any benefit, as has been prayed for by him in this original petition.

33. As indited above, the petitioner prays that this Court call for the records from the Sub Court, Kannur, and allow him to confront the documents sought to be produced, during cross examination of the witness for the defendant; as also to allow his counsel to ask questions based on the same.

34. The afore prayer in the original petition, apart from being very amorphous, also presents a real problem for the petitioner. This is because, even though this Court has found that in normal circumstances, a party will be entitled to whip out a document from his possession and confront the witness during cross examination, this can be allowed only if the rigour of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act is satisfied.

35. Going by the facts in this case, the petitioner alleges that the learned Advocate Commissioner, earlier appointed by the Trial Court to record evidence, as also the said Court subsequently, did not permit certain documents to be marked when they were sought to be put to the defendant's witness, for the reason that they had not been produced earlier.

36. However, going by the testimony of the witness appended to this original petition as Ext.P3, the question put to him in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner was: “There was no instance of false account prepared in Bhima Jewellery as you say. Are you not lying because Bhima Jewellery has filed another case against you in the Magistrate Court apart from the present suit?”. This question was answered by the witness, saying “No” and immediately thereafter, a document was shown to him. Clearly, the imperative ingredients of Section 145 of the Indian E

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

vidence Act were not attracted at this time and consequently, it is without doubt that the witness could not have been so confronted, though the reason recorded by the learned Advocate Commissioner was in error. 37. Similarly, before the Trial Court, a question was put to the witness to the effect: “Did you not give evidence (before the Criminal Court) that you have purchased gold ornaments worth Rs.5 lakh in connection with your sister's marriage?”. The answer of the witness to this was “yes”. Even though the witness answered so, a document was shown to him, apparently purported to be his testimony in the criminal court, which the Court did not agree to be marked, of course, for the reason that it had not been produced earlier. 38. When the Court refused the petitioner such opportunity, a subsequent question was put to the witness as: “what is the value of the gold ornaments purchased for your sister in connection with her marriage?”. The answer of the witness was “I don't remember.” Interestingly, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner showed another document to the witness with a question “Is what is shown to you, the counterfoil of the payslip, as per which, you paid money into the account of Bhima Jewellery”. Even before the witness could answer, the Court refused to mark the document, again stating that it had not been produced earlier. 39. As I have said about the learned Commissioner, it is without doubt, going by the opinion of this Court as afore recorded, that the reason recorded by the Trial Court in disallowing the petitioner from putting the documents to the witness cannot obtain my imprimatur. However, it is also irrefutable that the afore questions of the petitioner to the witness for the defendant were clearly not ones from which an opportunity of confronting him with new documents could have arisen as per Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, since they had no connection with any previous statement of his. Therefore, even though the reasons recorded are not incorrect, the Trial Court could not have permitted these documents to be put to the witness in this particular case, since by doing so, it would have caused violence to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. For the above reasons, this original petition is dismissed; however, without making any order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

06-10-2020 Jewellery World, Orissa Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Orissa National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-09-2020 Sandeep Gururaj Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 Sandeep Agarwal & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
28-08-2020 Sandeep Gowda @ Gowda Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
11-08-2020 Sandeep Kohli & Another Versus Rajvir Hadda & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-07-2020 Sandeep Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
17-07-2020 Sandeep Batra Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
15-07-2020 Sandeep Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
30-06-2020 Dr. P.S. Sandeep & Others Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2020 Palla Shanthi Kiran Versus The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravati & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
29-05-2020 Sandeep Kumar Ravesh Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
27-05-2020 K.V. Johny, Proprietor, Jwala Diamonds, Thrissur Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary To Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
06-05-2020 M/s. Sai Kiran Hospital & Another Versus State of Telangana & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-03-2020 Kiran Yadav Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
19-03-2020 Sandeep Sarin Versus M/s. Clarion Properties Limited Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
13-03-2020 M/s. R. Prakashchand Jewellery, Chennai Versus The Secretary, Tamilnadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 Kiran Kumar Dhappuri & Others Versus The State of Telangana., Rep., PP & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-03-2020 Sandeep Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Inspector of Police, Tirur, Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
26-02-2020 M/s. Kiran Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Manohar Lal Ahuja, Uttar Pradesh Versus Yashpal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2020 Sandeep Kumar Saxena & Another Versus Shashi Srivastava & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-02-2020 Kiran Pal Saini Versus State of Uttarakhand High Court of Uttarakhand
19-02-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Ashes Kiran Prasad High Court of Delhi
18-02-2020 Kiran Limboo Versus Kussang Limboo & Another High Court of Sikkim
17-02-2020 Rajendrajit Debbarma & Another Versus Sandeep Debbarma High Court of Tripura
14-02-2020 Dr. Ashwini Kumar Singh Versus Dr. Sandeep Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-02-2020 Lalithaa Jewellery Mart (P) Ltd., Chennai & Others Versus Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 Kiran Devi Agrawal & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-02-2020 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others Versus Sandeep Pandey, Constable (Retd.) No. 001148574, HA 148 BN BSF, Nagpur High Court of Kerala
17-01-2020 Sandeep Versus State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Home Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-01-2020 Kiran Kumari Versus State of Rajasthan Through Secretary High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
09-01-2020 Kranti Kumar Versus Ku. Kiran Shrivastava & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-01-2020 United India Insurance Co Ltd. Versus Sandeep Kumar Bubna Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
07-01-2020 United India Insurance Co Ltd. Versus Sandeep Kumar Bubna National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-01-2020 Liberty Garden CHS Ltd., Through its authorized representative Prashant Shikarkhane & Another Versus M/s. K.T. Group, A Registered Partnership Firm of Dhairya Sheth & Mr. Sandeep Sheth & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-12-2019 Moets Catering Services Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Bindra Versus Dr. Ambedkar International Center & Others High Court of Delhi
11-12-2019 Shakuntala Gupta & Others Versus Kiran Bhartia High Court of Karnataka
09-12-2019 Kiran Bala Versus Omaxe Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
05-12-2019 Sandeep V. Upadhyay & Another Versus Ajit Kumar Banerjee & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-12-2019 Deep Honda & Another Versus Sandeep Verma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-12-2019 Sandeep Kwatra Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-12-2019 Sandeep Versus State of M.P. High Court of Madhya Pradesh
29-11-2019 Vijay Kumar Gupta Versus Kiran Bala High Court of Chhattisgarh
28-11-2019 Kiran Pujar Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
19-11-2019 The Managing Director, Aditi Diamonds (P) Ltd., All India Press Compound, Pondicherry Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Pondicherry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 Anup Kiran Versus Punjab State Federation Of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-11-2019 Sandeep Mehta, Director, Jain Housing & Constructions Limited, Chennai & Another Versus Rani Paul, Represented by her husband G. Paul Vijayarajan High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-11-2019 Sandeep Jaiswal Versus State of M.P. & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
23-10-2019 New India Assurance Co Ltd. Versus Sandeep National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-10-2019 Kiran Kulkarni Versus The Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
07-10-2019 Sandeep Patil & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-10-2019 Kiran Jain Versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
25-09-2019 State Versus Sandeep High Court of Delhi
23-09-2019 Kiran Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-09-2019 Mamta Masih Versus Sandeep Masih High Court of Punjab and Haryana
17-09-2019 Samruddhi Developers Versus Kiran Vasant Verekar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-09-2019 Union of India & Others Versus Sandeep Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
05-09-2019 Sandeep Gururajan Versus State of Karnataka Represented by the Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
04-09-2019 B.N. Sandeep Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2019 Ritu Versus Sandeep Kumar Prashar High Court of Delhi
30-08-2019 In the matter of M/s. J.B. Diamonds Limited (in Liquidation) & Another Versus --------------- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-08-2019 M/s Shri Ram Rolling Mill Through its Partner Shri Sandeep Gidwani, Chhattisgarh Versus The Commissioner Central Excise & Customs, Raipur Commissionerate, Central Excise Building, Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-08-2019 Vijayraj Surana, Managing Director, M/s. Surana Corporation Limited, Chennai Versus M/s. Bhima Jewellery, A Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Power of Attorney, Internal Auditor, G. Veeraputhiran & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-08-2019 Sandeep Gupta Versus Punjab National Bank & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad
21-08-2019 Sandeep Saju Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
19-08-2019 Akshay Kumar @ Kiran Versus State by Electronic City Police Station, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
13-08-2019 Punjab National Bank Versus Kiran Shah, Interim Resolution Professional of Org Informatics Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
31-07-2019 Kiran & Another Versus State of Maharashtra through PSO PS In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-07-2019 Kiran Banerjee & Others Versus National Insurance Company & Others High Court of Delhi
23-07-2019 M/s. Jain Palace Versus Sandeep Singh High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
19-07-2019 Dynamic Designer Company Versus Sandeep Singh Arora & Others Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
19-07-2019 Kiran Kirit Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-07-2019 Sandeep Ramesh Solanki & Others Versus Shevanti Dadoba Nashte & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-07-2019 Gurmit Singh Bhatia Versus Kiran Kant Robinson & Others Supreme Court of India
17-07-2019 Gurmit Singh Bhatia V/S Kiran Kant Robinson and Others. Supreme Court of India
15-07-2019 Rajeswari Versus Kiran & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-07-2019 Small Industries Development Bank of India & Another Versus M/s. Aditya Diamonds & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-07-2019 Nisha Yadav Versus Sandeep Yadav High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
08-07-2019 Sandeep Kumar Versus Central Bureau of Narcotics High Court of Delhi
05-07-2019 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kiran Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
04-07-2019 Kiran Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Co-operation & Textile Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-06-2019 Kiran Devi Versus Philomena & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-06-2019 Ramchandra & Others Versus Kiran & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
03-06-2019 Kiran Murali & Another Versus Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., (A Company incorporate under the Companies Act, 1956) Having its Office at Softward Technology Park, Electronics Complex, Madhya Pradesh & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2019 S.K.T. Sherman Versus Sandeep Varshney & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-05-2019 Govt. of NCT of Delhi Versus Dr. Sandeep Miglani High Court of Delhi
18-05-2019 Sandeep Kumar Versus State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-05-2019 Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Sandeep Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-05-2019 V.K. Singh, I.P.S. Director General of Prisons & Correctional Services, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad Versus Sandeep & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-05-2019 The Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Versus Sandeep Shriram Warade & Others Supreme Court of India
02-05-2019 Bharti Airtel Limited Versus Sajjala Sandeep Reddy Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
24-04-2019 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Versus M/s. PRK Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
22-04-2019 Sandeep D Shetty Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police High Court of Karnataka
16-04-2019 Sandeep Aggarwal Versus Raj Kumar Aggarwal & Others High Court of Delhi
12-04-2019 Sandeep Yashwantrao Sarode Versus Election Commission of India, through its Chief Election Commissioner and Other Companion Election Commissioner & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
12-04-2019 Thiyam Kiran Singh V/S Union of India Represented by its Secretary & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
11-04-2019 Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited & Others Versus Kiran Devi Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
08-04-2019 Munish Kalra Versus Kiran Madan & Others High Court of Delhi
04-04-2019 Sandeep Bansal & Another Versus Niharika & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
01-04-2019 M/s. Precious Pet Services Private Limited, Reptd. by its BDM Sandeep Atmaram Versus State of Karnataka, Reptd. by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
29-03-2019 Mittapalli Kiran Kumar Versus The State of Telangana & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana