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



Birla Medical Technologies v/s Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj General Hospital Govt. of Maharashtra


Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L01132WB1919PLC003334

Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L71100MH1982PLC028750

Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH2000PLC128315

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U85110GJ1993PLC019685

Company & Directors' Information:- IN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2010PTC210298

Company & Directors' Information:- P. MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85195TG1987PTC008112

Company & Directors' Information:- E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106075

Company & Directors' Information:- K-TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KL2006PTC019422

Company & Directors' Information:- AT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PN2007PTC130827

Company & Directors' Information:- M & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2010PTC071594

Company & Directors' Information:- M & A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2014PTC269962

Company & Directors' Information:- G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29299GJ2001PTC039300

    Revision Petition No. 4710 of 2013

    Decided On, 22 December 2016

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. B.C. GUPTA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Shipra Mathur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ankur Gupta, Advocate.



Judgment Text

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 24.10.2013, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. CC/04/85, vide which, miscellaneous application No. 1829/2004, filed by the complainant/respondent, seeking condonation of delay of 501 days in filing the complaint in question, was allowed and the matter was listed for admission hearing on 04.12.2013.

2. The facts of the case are that the complainant Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj General Hospital Solapur, (hereinafter called as Hospital) is a state-owned general hospital of the Government of Maharashtra and under the administrative control of the said hospital is V.M. Medical College, Solapur. The complainant floated tenders for the supply of an equipment called, Blood Gas Analyser for the V.M. Medical College in the year 1999, for which the petitioner/opposite party (OP) respondent offered to supply a Hong Kong-made machine for a price of US$ 30,000 ex-ware house Hong Kong, vide their letter dated 09.04.92. After seeking approval from the Government, the complainant placed an order for the purchase of the said equipment with the respondent vide their letter dated 22.04.92 and the cost payable for the said instrument was Rs.9,59,879/-. An agreement was signed between the parties on 27.04.92 as acceptance of the offer and as stated in the consumer complaint, theequipment was to be supplied within 10 weeks from the opening of letter of credit by the complainant. The complainant opened the letter of credit with State Bank of India, Solapur by depositing a sum of Rs.8,23,000/- vide letter dated 29.05.92. The Bank issued irrevocable letter of credit dated 14.07.92 in favour of M/s. Instrumentation Laboratories (Far East) Limited USA, which was later amended at the request of the contractor to be payable at Hong Kong. The equipment was to be supplied within 10 weeks from the opening of LOC, i.e., by 21.09.1992, but the same was supplied on 18.11.92, i.e., with a delay of 8 weeks. The complainant had to pay an extra amount of Rs.40,975/- towards difference in exchange rate, due to late delivery. After several requests from the complainant, the contractor sent their service engineer to install the machine on 04.02.93, but even at that time, it was noticed that some regulator was malfunctioning. Even after the repair of the said regulator, the machine did not function properly. The facts were brought to the notice of the contractor many times. Vide letter dated 29.04.93, the contractor requested the complainant to permit them to transport the Gas I cylinder which had leaked due to faulty regulator. He also undertook to replace the regulator. In their consumer complaint, the complainants have given details of the correspondence exchanged between them and the opposite party during the years 1993 and 1994, regarding the problems encountered by them in the functioning of the machine. Thereafter, on 05.10.1998, the complainant asked the respondent to replace the equipment, in response to which they sent a letter dated 21.10.98, saying that they were reviewing the entire case and would respond to the complainant. It is stated that various letters were sent by the complainant from time to time as a follow-up of their request to replace the machine, but appropriate action was not taken by the opposite party. The letters sent on 03.04.2002 and 04.06.2002 were received back undelivered. The consumer complaint in question was then filed in August 2004, after getting permission from the Government, seeking directions to the OP/respondent to pay a sum of Rs._28,60,439.42_ps., being the total cost of blood gas analyser, including interest @18% p.a. on the amount in question. Alongwith the complaint, an application for condonation of delay was also filed before the State Commission, giving details of the correspondence made by the complainant with the OP/respondent. Vide impugned order dated 24.10.2013, passed by the State Commission, after hearing both the parties, the Miscellaneous Application No. 1829/2004, seeking condonation of delay of 501 days has been allowed. It is against this order that the OP/respondent is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

3. It has been stated in the grounds of revision petition as well as during arguments from the petitioner, that the complaint was hopelessly barred by time, because the cause of action had arisen as early as in the year 1993, when the delay in the installation of the equipment had been alleged by the complainant. The cause of action could not be extended merely by exchange of letters between the parties. The complaint was, therefore, in complete violation of section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because as per that provision, the complaint could be filed only within 2 years of the cause of action. The petitioner/OP submitted that Birla Medical Technology (BMT) was a division of GMM Co. Ltd. and was merely a supplier and not the manufacturer of the medical equipment and hence, they could not be made liable for any manufacturing defect in the said equipment. The said BMT was closed in the year 2002, after tapering down of its business activities. The complaint was filed in the year 2004, i.e., 12 years after the time of placing the order for the machine. Moreover, the State Commission took more than 8 years for sending notice of the same to them, since the filing of the complaint. After the lapse of 12 + 8 = 20 years and in the absence of any record or details pertaining to the case, the petitioner/OP could not be expected to defend itself. No reason had been shown by the complainants to indicate as to why they could not file the consumer complaint within 2 years of the cause of action. The order passed by the State Commission condoning the delay of 501 days, which in fact was more than that, was not based on sound legal footing and deserved to be set aside and the complaint deserved to be dismissed. The petitioner/OP had also filed a detailed reply before the State Commission on the lines stated above vide their affidavit dated 27.06.2012, requesting that the application for condonation of delay need to be dismissed.

4. In reply, Ld. Counsel for the respondent / complainant stated that a perusal of the order passed by the State Commission indicated that the complainant had been able to provide a day-to-day account of correspondence with the OP and hence, there was sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, in accordance with law.

5. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

6. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down as follows:-

'Limitation period. - (l) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (l), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.'

7. As per the version given by the complainant, which is a general hospital owned by the Government of Maharashtra, the blood gas analyser was delivered to them on 18.11.92 and it was installed on 04.02.93 by the service engineer of the OP, but it was not functioning properly from the very beginning. As stated by them, they had detailed correspondence with the OP from time to time and ultimately in the year 1998, vide their letter dated 05.10.98, asked them to replace the equipment. However, the consumer complaint in question, was filed in August 2004. It is not understood as to what prevented a responsible government-run institution to file a consumer complaint against the OP, well in time in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is very clear that the cause of action arose when the machine was not functioning properly. The cause of action also arose when in response to their letter dated 05.10.98, the OP sent a reply dated 21.10.1998, saying that they were reviewing the entire case. It was the duty of the complainant to have filed the consumer complaint latest within 2 years of the letter from the OP on 21.10.98. In their application for condonation of delay, although the complainants have given details of the correspondence with the OP since the year 1992–93, but they have failed to explain as to why they refrained themselves from filing any complainant against the OP, even when they felt that no positive steps had been taken by them to redress their grievance. The complainants have also stated that their letters dated 03.04.2002 and 04.06.2002 sent to the respondent were received back unclaimed. It was, therefore, their duty to take steps to file the consumer complaint immediately, rather than waiting till August 2004.

8. The State Commission have stated in the impugned order that the complainant had given chronological report from 05.10.98 to 19.05.2004, explaining the abnormal delay in filing the consumer complaint. This argument given by the State Commission cannot be accepted because it is clearly made out from the version of the complainants that there was never any response from the OPs after their letter of 21.10.98. The letters sent in the year 2002 were returned unclaimed. It is not understood, therefore, as to what stopped them from moving the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law. There does not appear to be any convincing or cogent explanation for the condonation of the said delay.

9. The matter regarding the applicability of section 24A of the Act has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 'State Bank of India v. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121]', it has been stated therein as follows:-

'It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires the consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, 'shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24-A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder.'

10. The matter has further been considered in the case of 'Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 7 SCC 768]' in which it has been stated as follows:-

'Section 24-A of the Act bars any fora set up under the Act, from admitting a complaint, unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The provision expressly casts a duty on the Commission, admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.'

11. As per the law laid down in the judgment

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

s quoted above, it is the duty of the consumer fora to examine the issue of limitation before admitting a consumer complaint and then to record reasons for extension of time, if there were sufficient grounds to do the same. Looking at the chronology of events in the present case, there does not seem to be any sufficient reason showed by the complainant for condoning the inordinate delay on the part of the complainant in moving the consumer fora. 12. Another interesting feature of the case is that after filing the complaint in August 2004, the notice was sent to the OPs by the State Commission for the first time in March 2012, i.e., after a period of 8 years for the reasons best known to the State Commission. 13. The contention raised by the petitioner that after the lapse of huge time of 20 years, they were unable to lay hands on the concerned papers and defend the case properly, seems to be based on logical reasoning. 14. Based on the foregoing discussion, it is held that the order passed by the State Commission condoning the delay in filing the consumer complaint is not in accordance with law. The said order is, therefore, set aside and this revision petition is allowed. Consequently, the consumer complaint, in question, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

29-06-2020 Santosh Singh Gehlot Versus State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department of Medical & Health, Government of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
25-06-2020 Dr. S. Anusha Versus The Director of Medical and Health Services, Teynampet, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-06-2020 Munna Lal Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical & Health Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
19-06-2020 Vishwas Utagi & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-06-2020 M/s. CSK Technologies, Hydrabad (Telangana) Versus South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-06-2020 Dr. K.M. Senthamizhselvan, State President, Ayush Medical Welfare Association, Thiruvannamalai Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-06-2020 Komal Hiwale Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Mahesh Sambhaji Chafle Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Akheda Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Vishnupant Motba Kesarkar Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 M/s. Thakur Stone Quarries through its Partner Munesh Hotilal Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited Versus NCS Computech Private Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2020 Sahyog Homes Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-06-2020 Sachin @ Satish Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-06-2020 Citizen Forum for Equality, a registered NGO, vide registration no:-MH/645/11, through its President Madhukar Ganpat Kukde Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-06-2020 Aditya Birla Money Limited, Rep. By its Head – Legal & Compliance, L.R. Murali Krishnan Versus The National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Investors Services Cell, Kotturpuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Dr. G. Gowthaman Versus The Joint Director, Medical & Rural Health Services, Tiruppur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Dr. K.Gautham Versus The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad Versus Prabhakar Karbhari Ghatmale & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-05-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Mangesh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Abhinav Bharat Congress & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Bhagtam & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Ms. X Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-05-2020 The Director, Jubilee Mission Medical College & Research Institute, Trichur & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by The Secretary To Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
18-05-2020 K. Gautham Versus The Director of Medical Education, EVR Periyar Salai, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
15-05-2020 A.P. Suryaprakasam Versus Superintendent of Police, Sangli District, Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Microvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 Pratik & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Mahur Dist. Nanded & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 Chandrakant Kotecha Charitable Trust Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-05-2020 Shekhar @ Mukesh Sanadi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-05-2020 Pradeep Gandhy Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
04-05-2020 Priyambada Devi Birla & Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-05-2020 Mohammad Nishat Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Shivray Kulkarni & Others Versus State of Maharashtra &Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Syed Salim & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrayalay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-04-2020 Christian Medical College Vellore Association Versus Union Of India & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Ajay Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
23-04-2020 High Court on its own motion Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-04-2020 In Re: Scientific Disposal of Bio-Medical Waste arising out of COVID-19 treatment-Compliance of BMW Rules, 2016 National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
21-04-2020 Deodutta Gangadhar Marathe Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Pankaj Rajmachikar Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Bashir Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-04-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-04-2020 Sarva Hara Jan Andolan through Ulka Mahajan & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 Nilesh Shriniwas Baswant Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-03-2020 Azam Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Shankar Bhintade High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shankar Khandu Thombare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Kondiba Bahiru Thambare High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Manglam Roongta & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through – PI of Chavani Police Station, Malegaon, District - Nasik) Versus Dr. Baban Lahanu Gangurde & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
17-03-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Superintending Engineer, Admn. Versus M/.Pranavditya Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 CEAT Limited (formerly known as Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Eswai Ponnusamy Educational & Charitable Trust Versus Registrar (Fac), Tamilnadu Mgr Medical University High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-03-2020 Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 Chirag Sundarlal Gupta Versus The State of Maharashtra (through Kurar Village Police Station High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 D. Sasirekha Versus The Assistant Secretary Medical Council of India Pocket-14, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
12-03-2020 Ernakulum Medical Centre, Rep. By Its Director, Palarivattom & Another Versus Dr. P.R. Jayasree & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Sayyad Azim Sayyad Mnazur & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Nivrutti Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Mohd. Nazir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 Ishwar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Lahu Bhausaheb Sonwane Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Hasina Siraj Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra Secretary through Department of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Sanjay Devaji Ramteke Versus The State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-03-2020 Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tirathsing Labana @ Punjabi Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court, A.S. Mumbai) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box