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



D.B. Jatti & Another v/s Kambam Sudhir Joseph Reddy & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- JOSEPH AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U01211KL1954PTC000507

Company & Directors' Information:- E R JOSEPH & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28920WB1955PTC022404

    Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 127 of 2018

    Decided On, 30 May 2019

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

    For the Petitioner: A.C. Chethan, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.



Judgment Text


1. Learned Counsel appearing for both parties submit that this petition is covered by the decision of this Court in C.M.P. No. 18/2018, dated 26th July, 2018.

2. The petitioners filed the present civil miscellaneous petition under the provisions of section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') to appoint sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in respect of agreement of sale dated 22-2-2013.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 22-2-2013, the respondents entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioners for purchase of Villa No. 12 in Dwarakamai Layout developed by the petitioners.

4. In pursuance to the agreement, on 26-5-2011, the petitioners executed sale deed in favour of the respondents conveying Villa No. 12 in Dwarakamai Laryout. On 10-7-2017, the petitioners sent a letter demanding the respondents for payment of arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs. 3,51,855/-. On 24-7-2017, the respondents replied refusing to pay the arrears of maintenance charges. Thereafter, on 9-9-2017, the petitioners issued a statutory notice/arbitral notice to appoint sole Arbitrator by proposing the name of Arbitrator. By reply dated 4-10-2017, the respondents denied the applicability of arbitration clause and refused to accept the arbitration. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

6. Sri Chethan A.C, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that existence of agreement to sell dated 20-8-2010 entered into between the parties and Arbitration Clause 25 is not in dispute. He would further contend that in compliance of provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act, on 9-9-2017, a legal notice was issued to the respondents. He pointed out that the respondents have filed counter and have not disputed the existence of the agreement at paragraph 4. He also pointed out that the parties have not entered into any other mode of arbitration agreement stipulated under Section 7 of the Act. He would further contend that as per Annexure-C, dated 10-7-2017, a demand notice was issued to the respondents to pay the maintenance charges due to the petitioners-company in respect of Villa No. 12, Dwarakamai Layout, giving details therein, the same was replied on 22-7-2017. However, the respondents have not at all whispered about Association in the said reply.

7. He would further contend that Association was formed only on 24-7-2017 and there was no demand against the Association for maintenance. Therefore, question of impleading the Association for the present proceedings in respect of dispute arose between the parties on the basis of agreement of sale would not arise. He would further contend that in view of the amended provisions of Section 11 (6-A) of the Act, even assuming that there is a dispute between the petitioners and Association is only injunction that will not come in the way of enforcing the existence of an arbitration agreement. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners sought to allow the petition.

8. Per contra, Sri S. Sriranga, the learned Counsel for the respondents, has contended that the very dispute raised in the present petition is not arbitrable in terms of Annexure-E, where legal notice is issued on 9-9-2017 without impleading Association as a party. He would further contend that Registrar of Societies, by an order dated 19-10-2017, registered the Association and further directed the Association and the petitioners to resolve the disputes which may arise between the members of the Association and the petitioners under the agreement to sell through Competent Authority/Civil Court. He further contended that Original Suit is pending between the petitioners and Association. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Count in the case of Sukanya Holdings (Private) Limited v. jayesh H. Pandya and Another AIR 2003 SC 2252 :111(2003) SLT 194, (2003)5 SCC 531 especially paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 and in the case of Arvind Bhardwaj and Another v. Sana Realtors Private Limited and Others, 2016 SCC Online Del. 3665, paragraphs 10 and 19. He further contended that in response to Annexure-C, dated 10-7-2017, the reply - Annexure-D, dated 22-7-2017, there is reference to form an Association. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the civil miscellaneous petition.

9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the petitioners relied upon the existence of agreement of sale dated 20-8-2010. Clause 4 refers that the Schedule 'B' property shall be registered at the cost of the PURCHASERS upon receiving the entire sale consideration including charges for amenities and all other costs. Physical possession of the Villa shall be delivered within 4 (Four) months from the date of completion of sale transaction. The DEVELOPERS shall be entitled to a grace period of 3 (Three) months thereafter. The DEVELOPERS shall not be held responsible if it is unable to deliver possession by the aforesaid date by reason of any Act of God or if the delay is as a result of any Rule, Notification of the Government, Municipal Authority, any Court and/or any other public or Competent Authority or for reasons beyond the control of the DEVELOPERS.

10. Clause 7 refers that if the PURCHASERS voluntarily choose to rescind the agreement, the DEVELOPERS shall within 30 days of entering into a fresh agreement with the prospective PURCHASERS shall refund the amount paid by the PURCHASERS after forfeiting 10 per cent of the total cost of the Villa as damages.

11. Clause 9 refers that the DEVELOPERS reserves easementary rights in perpetuity in the roads and other passages leading to each of the Villa and other development/s in the neighbouring EXTENSIONS and it is a restrictive covenant of a perpetual easementary right which runs with the 'B' Schedule Property and is irrevocable under any circumstances. Further, the PURCHASERS shall have no right to question such use and enjoyment of the roads and passages Schedule 'A' Property by the DEVELOPERS and its nominees/transferees.

12. Clause 11 refers that the name of the layout on the Schedule-A Property shall be known as "DWARAKAMAI" which shall not be changed/altered even after the Association is formed.

13. Clause 18 refers that PURCHASERS shall also pay advance Maintenance charges to be fixed by the DEVELOPERS before registration of the Schedule 'B' Property in their favour. In addition, he shall pay maintenance and amenities charges at Rs. 50/- per sq. ft.

14. Clause 19 refers that the DEVELOPERS after the development of the Layout shall maintain the Villas constructed on Schedule 'A' Property along with the other common areas and amenities for a period of three years at the cost of the PURCHASERS and thereafter the Developers shall assign the maintenance work to the Owners Association to be formed and the said Association will manage the common areas and facilitates of the Layout on cost to cost basis.

15. In Clause 23, in unequivocal terms, it is stated that all such terms and conditions, clauses of this agreement to sell, insofar as they are not repugnant or covered, or inconsistent with the terms of a registered sale deed or deed of conveyance, executed in future by the DEVELOPERS in favour of PURCHASERS shall subsist, valid and remain in force between the parties.

16. The main clause, with regard to arbitration, is Clause 25. It clearly refers that "in the event of any dispute or difference arising between the parties hereto in regard to any matter relating to or concerned to or connected with Agreement to sell or sale deed, the same shall be first referred for arbitration of a sole arbitrator and the arbitration proceeding shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both parties. The venue of Arbitration shall be Bangalore".

17. Material on record clearly depicts that subsequently after sale deed dated 26-5-2011 came to be executed, on 10-7-2017, the petitioners sent a letter mentioning subject as regarding amended Rules in Jatti - Dwarakamai and reminder to pay the maintenance charges due to the company. As on that date, the Association alleged to have been formed by the respondents was not in existence. Admittedly, Association came to be formed only on 22-7-2017. Though in the reply dated 24-7-2017, the respondents have stated to disclose all back office facility and service to Villas Owner, otherwise, the company is liable for all maneuver of amount collected in the name of common service to 'Dwarkamai Villa Owners', if not, the villa owners are constrained to legally form an Association to manage the same. In arbitration notice dated 9-9-2017, it is specifically stated that the project is yet to be completed in all aspects, there are about seven villas which are under construction and from 2010, petitioners maintaining and managing the project and all the villa owners are making part payments towards monthly maintenance to the petitioners. It is specifically stated that even though some of the villa owners were default in paying the monthly maintenance promptly, the petitioners have made every endeavour to maintain the property in very good condition and also maintain the supply of water, electricity, etc. without any interruption. Petitioners called upon the respondents to give consent and concur the name of Arbitrator to adjudicate all the pending issues between the petitioners and the respondents with regard to Villa No. 12 in Dwarakamai project and all the matters connected with common areas, amenities, etc. within thirty days from the date of issuance of legal notice.

18. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts that there is existence of agreement entered into between the parties dated 20-8-2010 and existence of arbitration clause, the contention of learned Counsel for the respondents that the agreement has been wiped up by virtue of sale deed being executed cannot be accepted. At the same time, the respondents have admitted that they have not entered into any other mode of arbitration agreement stipulated under Section 7 of the Act. It is not the case of the respondents that either in the reply to the letter or counter to the legal notice, there is no existence of agreement of sale between the parties. Whether the issues raised is triable or not has to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator alone. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that dispute is not arbitrable in terms of Annexure-E (legal notice from the petitioners) cannot be accepted. Other contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents that without impleading Association, petition is filed cannot be accepted. For the simple reason that as on the demand notice issued by the petitioners on 10-7-2017 for maintenance charges in respect of Villa No. 12, Association was not in existence and it is not the case of the petitioners that after the formation of the Association, they are demanding for maintenance charges, but petitioners are demanding in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties.

19. Insofar as judgment relied by learned Counsel for the respondents in the case of Sukanya Holdings (Private) Limited v. Jayesh H. Pandya and Another, (2003)5 SCC 531, where a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm and accounts and inter-alia challenging the conveyance deed executed by the partnership firm in favour of third party. On the same day, an arbitration petition under Section 8 of the Act was filed by another partner in the firm. Therefore, the High Court rejected the petition taking the view that in the suit apart from the relief of dissolution and accounts, the plaintiff has prayed for other reliefs and all the defendants to the suit are not parties or partners in the partnership firm. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

20. The provisions of Sections 8 and 11 of the Act are entirely different. My view is fortified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited and Others AIR 2011 SC 2507:2011(102) AIC 259 (SC): VI(2011) SLT 653 : 2011(4) SCJ 604 :2011 AIR SCW 3089, (2011)5 SCC 532 has held as under:

"The nature and scope of issues arising for consideration in an application under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of Arbitrators, are far narrower than those arising in an application under Section 8 of the Act, seeking reference of the parties to a suit to arbitration. While considering an application under Section 11 of the Act, the Chief Justice or his designate would not embark upon an examination of the issue of 'arbitrability' or appropriateness of adjudication by a private forum, once he finds that there was an arbitration agreement between or among the parties, and would leave the issue of arbitrability for the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal. If the Arbitrator wrongly holds that the dispute is arbitrable, the aggrieved party will have to challenge the award by filing an application under Section 34 of the Act, relying upon sub-section (2)(b)(i) of that Section."

Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted.

21. Further, in the case of Arvind Bhardivaj and Another v. Sana Realtors Private Limited and Others, 2016 SCC Online Del. 3665, referred by the respondents, it was a case where the agreement was wiped up as soon as sale deed has been executed. In the present case, the terms and conditions specifically stated that even after execution of sale deed, terms and conditions entered into between the parties, still exists with regard to payment of 'B' Schedule property. The said judgment is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

22. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the provisions of Section 11(6) and (6-A), in the case of Duro Feignera, S. A. v. Gangavaram Port Limited AIR 2017 SC 5070 : VII(2017) SLT 656, (2017)9 SCC 729, at paragraph 48 held as under:

"48. Section 11(6-A) added by the 2015 Amendment, reads as follows:

"11. (6-A) The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court, while considering any applicat

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ion under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-section (6), shall, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, confine to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement." From a reading of Section 11 (6-A), the intention of the Legislature is crystal clear i.e. the Court should and need only look into one aspect - the existence of an arbitration agreement. What are the factors for deciding as to whether there is an arbitration agreement is the next question. The resolution to that is simple - it needs to be seen if the agreement contains a clause which provides for arbitration pertaining to the disputes which have arisen between the parties to the agreement." 23. In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the admitted facts, the contention of the respondents cannot be accepted. 24. In view of the aforesaid material clearly depicts the existence of Clause 18 for arbitration in the agreement entered into between the parties dated 20-8-2010 and the petitioners have complied the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act, there is no impediment for this Court to appoint sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arisen between the parties. 25. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. Sri M. Nagarajan, Retired Judicial Member, CAT, appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement dated 20-8-2010 entered into between the parties. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator and the Arbitration Centre for reference.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-09-2020 Christopher Joseph O'neill Versus Andrew Bridgman & Others Court of Appeal of New Zealand
11-09-2020 M/s. Unicorn Maritimes (India) Private Limited., Represented by its Director Arul Augustin Joseph Chennai Versus Valency Internation Trading Pvt Limited., Represented by its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 John Joseph, Advocate, Chairman Voters Alliance, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 Dr. Joseph Freeman Motha & Another Versus Sudha Vijayan & Another High Court of Kerala
19-08-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Jollyamma Joseph Versus State of Kerala Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 G. Bhagavat Singh Versus Manoj Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 Shoby Joseph & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Crime No. 367 of 2019 of CB, Central Unit-IV, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Jai Joseph Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
15-07-2020 Manu Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Dr. K.J. Joseph & Others Versus The Mattathur Grama Panchayath, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Bilsy Joseph, now residing at 3743, Falkner Drive, United States of America, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder (Mother), Rosamma Joseph, Kottayam Versus Registrar of Births & Deaths, Changanassery Muncipality, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2020 Joe Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-05-2020 Jobin Joseph Versus Uma Thomas & Another High Court of Kerala
30-04-2020 United Nurses Association, Through Its State President Shoby Joseph, Thrissur Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
28-04-2020 Kane Joseph Manoah Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
20-03-2020 Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 K.T. Joseph & Another Versus Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 Shyla @ Shymol Kamalasanan & Another Versus Joseph High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 M/s. Logical Developers Private Limited, New Delhi, Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Jose Joseph, Kochi & Another Versus M/s. Muthoot Mini Financiers Private Limited, Pathanamthitta, Represented by Its Chairman & Managing Director Roy M. Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
10-03-2020 Shail Jiju Versus Biju Joseph & Another High Court of Kerala
09-03-2020 V.Y. Thomas @ Sajimon Versus V.Y. Joseph High Court of Kerala
03-03-2020 Jet Airways (India) Ltd., represented by its Airport Manager Versus Thomas Joseph Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
28-02-2020 Sabu Joseph Versus Kerala State Election Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, State Election Commission Office, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
20-02-2020 General Manager, Hmt Machine Tools Ltd., Through Its Deputy General Manager (Hr) Shri Joseph Pradeep Keshri Minz, Ajmer (Raj) & Others Versus Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (Raj) & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-02-2020 Lalu Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Proseucutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam for The Circle Inspector of Police, Nilambur High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 Marthoma Syrian Church, Represented by Most Rev. Dr. Joseph, Marthoma Metropolitan, Thiruvalla & Others Versus Jessie Thampi (Died) & Others High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 Joy Joseph Versus Desai Homes represented by V.R. Desai & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
13-02-2020 E. Arputhadhas Versus E. Joseph (Died) & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-02-2020 Tonymon Joseph Versus General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai & Others High Court of Kerala
31-01-2020 Kolli Venkata Mohana Rao & Another Versus Joseph Christian Krishnaraj (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 J. Xavier Versus Joseph High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 K. John & Others Versus John Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
14-01-2020 Joseph Yemmiganoor @ Kadakoti Versus State, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
19-12-2019 Joseph Tajet Versus State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary To Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
12-12-2019 Nobby M. George, Changanassery Tlauk, Rep. by Power of Attorney holder his mother Alice George, Changanassery Versus Jossy Joseph, Kuttanad Taluk, Now Staying With Her Sister Raji Joseph, Erskine Court, Nanuet 10954, New York, USA High Court of Kerala
10-12-2019 Joseph Charles & Others Versus State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station-South, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-12-2019 P.T. Joseph, Proprietor, Cheryl Enterprises, Elamakkara, Ernakulam Versus Kabeer Husain Minanna & Others High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 Joseph Mathai @ Jose Versus State of Kerala, Thiruvampady Police Station, Crime No.199/07 High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 M. Jeyamary Versus M. Joseph Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-11-2019 Deepa Rachal George Versus Sherin Annie Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
14-11-2019 Rev. Fr. L. Joseph Paulraj Versus St. Mary's Cathedral Trust Rep. by its Secretary-cum-Treasurer Rev. Fr. Devaraj & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-11-2019 Joseph Antony Gerard Versus J.L. Malarvizhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2019 IC 29547 L Bobby Joseph Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
26-09-2019 Priya Versus Biju Joseph High Court of Kerala
19-09-2019 M.M. Joseph Versus Yoonus & Others High Court of Kerala
19-09-2019 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Egmore, Chennai, Represented by Chief Manager, Stephen Joseph, Kochi Versus Joseph Mohanan & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2019 Alwin Joseph Versus The Superintendent of Police, Erode & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-09-2019 Sushil Joseph Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II (Authority under the Payment of Wages Act) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2019 Paul Joseph Shirole & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-08-2019 B.S. Shabana Versus Kevin Joseph Selvadoray High Court of Karnataka
22-08-2019 State of Kerala, Represented by deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Law), State Goods & Service Tax Department, Ernakulam Versus Raphel T. Joseph High Court of Kerala
21-08-2019 M/s Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd., V.H. Kammath Towers, Kadathy, Muvattupuzha Versus James K. Joseph & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
09-08-2019 Charly Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Industries Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
09-08-2019 Joseph Thomas @ Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
30-07-2019 Sijo Joseph Versus The Transport Commissioner, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
29-07-2019 Geemol Joseph, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder Losan Joseph Versus Kousthabhan & Another High Court of Kerala
19-06-2019 Joseph Thomas @ Thampi Kannanthanam & Others Versus Molly George @ Molamma High Court of Kerala
14-06-2019 C. Joseph Versus The District Collector, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-06-2019 V.M. Joseph Versus Kadanad Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
11-06-2019 Clarence Joseph Bhengra Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
07-06-2019 L'Oratoire Saint-Joseph du Mont-Royal Versus J.J Supreme Court of Canada
30-05-2019 Thresiamma Manshoven Versus Manshoven Jacques Joseph High Court of Kerala
29-05-2019 Asha, Rep. by the Power of Attorney Holder Jonh D'cruz Versus P.K. Joseph & Another High Court of Kerala
02-05-2019 Lydia Agnes Rodrigues (Since deceased) through her legal heirs & Others Versus Joseph Anthony D'Cunha & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-04-2019 Viji Joseph & Another Versus P. Chander & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-04-2019 Management of St. Joseph of Cluny Montessori School, Pondicherry Versus The Director of School Education, Government of Pondicherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2019 Joseph Santhosh Kottarathil Alexander & Others Versus The Superintendent of Customs (Aiu), Cochin International Airport, Nedumbassery, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
29-03-2019 Joseph Peter & Others Versus Elizabath Manuel & Others High Court of Kerala
25-03-2019 Commissioner, West Arni Panchayat Union, Thiruvannamalai Versus St. Joseph Social Welfare Centre, Rep by Brother & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-03-2019 Joseph Saldhana Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-03-2019 K.A. Joseph Versus The District Collector, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
07-03-2019 Sebastian Joseph Versus The Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai Others High Court of Kerala
06-03-2019 James Joseph Murren as Trustee of the James J Murren Spendthrift Trust & Daniel Lee Versus Glenn Schaeffer Court of Appeal of New Zealand
27-02-2019 Tushar Versus Internal Complaints Committee Christ University, Rep. by its Presiding Officer Dr. Mayamma Joseph & Others High Court of Karnataka
22-02-2019 Shali Joseph & Another Versus S.K. Sasikumar High Court of Kerala
19-02-2019 P.B. Dineshan Pillai Versus Joseph @ Jose High Court of Kerala
18-02-2019 Joseph Versus State of Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
13-02-2019 HDB Financial Services Limited, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Legal Officer (Kerala) & Authorized Officer, A.C. Pratheesh Versus M/s. Kings Baker Private Limited, Kottayam, Represented by Its Proprietor, Tom.P. Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
08-02-2019 Malabar Granites, Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M.K. Joseph Versus The Secretary , Koppam Grama Panchayat, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
31-01-2019 Sami Labs Limited Versus M.V. Joseph High Court of Karnataka
29-01-2019 P. Santhosh Joseph & Another Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Dept., Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-01-2019 Malabar Granites, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M.K. Joseph Versus The Secretary, Koppam Grama Panchayat & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2019 Thomas Joseph Versus Caculo Automotive Pvt. Ltd. & Another Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panaji
24-01-2019 The Commercial Tax Officer, Changanassery & Others Versus M/s. Hotel Breezeland Ltd., Changanassery, Represented by Its Managing Director Joseph Cherian & Another High Court of Kerala
23-01-2019 M/s. Sanjose Parish Hospital, Represented by its Director, Rev. Fr. Joseph (Noby) Ambookan & Others Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Chavakkad, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
22-01-2019 Joseph A. Kennedy Versus Bremerton School District (2019) Supreme Court of United States
22-01-2019 Joseph A. Kennedy Versus Bremerton School District(2019) Supreme Court of United States
18-01-2019 M/s. Sanjose Parish Hospital, Thrissur, Represented by Its Director, Rev. Fr. Joseph (Noby) Ambookan & Others Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
14-01-2019 Joseph Velivil Versus Nucleus Premium Properties Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Nishad N.P, Ventura Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
11-01-2019 Suo Motu, K. Ani Joseph & Others Versus State of Kerala & Another High Court of Kerala
11-01-2019 Joseph George & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Chief Secretary, State Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
03-01-2019 The Assistant General Manager & Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India Consortium, Ernakulam Main Branch Versus The Dewa Investors Association, Ernakulam, Represented By Its President Prince Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
19-12-2018 The Refugee Appeal Board of South Africa & Others Versus Paul Joseph Mutombo Mukungubila Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
14-12-2018 Suriyur Vivasayigal Pathukappu Sangam, Rep. by its President, T. Ramaraj, Trichy Versus LA Bottlers Private Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Joseph Francis, Thiruchirappalli & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-12-2018 Stella Joseph & Another Versus The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Kerala
13-12-2018 K.A. Joseph, Kannur District & Another Versus South Indian Bank Ltd, Kannur & Another Debts Recovery Tribunal Ernakulam
29-11-2018 Alphonsa Joseph and Others V/S Anand Joseph High Court of Kerala Ernakulam Bench
30-10-2018 Tomy Joseph Versus Smitha Tomy High Court of Kerala