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



Dewan Izzat Rai Nanda Thru Lr's v/s Dewan Iqbal Nath Thru Lr's & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- RAI CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993GJ2012PTC070063

Company & Directors' Information:- NATH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31908PN2013PTC148540

Company & Directors' Information:- D P RAI AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1996PTC080309

Company & Directors' Information:- NANDA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909AR1998PTC005327

Company & Directors' Information:- NATH AND CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15141KL1946PLC000796

Company & Directors' Information:- NANDA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1970PTC005470

Company & Directors' Information:- NANDA AND CO. PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC005470

Company & Directors' Information:- NANDA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC000147

    CS(OS). No. 34 of 1977, I.As. Nos. 487, 860, 14786, 15583 & 5697 of 2020

    Decided On, 25 August 2020

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

    For the Plaintiffs: Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For the Defendants: D1, Ritesh Khatri, D3, Rajeev Sharma, D4, D. Moitra, Manish Sharma, Jigyasa Sharma, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Judgment (Oral)

I.A. 5697/2020

1. By this order I shall decide this application filed by Radha Soami Satsang Beas (‘Beas’ in short) (applicant / defendant no.1) with the following prayers:

“WHEREFORE, in the light of facts and circumstances stated herein above, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to direct the appropriate office / registry I branch of this Hon'ble court to release the amount of money qua 9 /48th share of the Applicant / Defendant No. 1, in the money lying deposited with High court against auction sale of RS Pura Property; and or pass such other and or further order / direction that this Hon'ble court may deem it fit and proper in interest of justice.”

2. It is the case of Beas in the application and so contended by Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Advocate that the aforesaid suit being CS (OS) 34/1977, was for partition in which preliminary decree was passed on July 17, 1998; and it was finally adjudicated on August 16, 2016. One of the properties which was subject matter of partition was the property situated in Tehsil R.S. Pura, Jammu. The said property was put up for auction and bid of the auction purchaser was accepted for a sum of Rs.18 Crores and this amount was deposited in this High Court, and has not been disbursed till date. In the final decree dated August 16, 2016 this Court has in para 15 stated as under:

“15. In this view of the matter, a final decree for partition is passed in the suit directing the partition by sale of all the properties subject matter of the suit and distribution of the sale proceeds amongst the parties in accordance with their share under the preliminary decree and with the following further directions:

(I) The original title document/s with respect to the property / and which have been auctioned to Lala Amar Nath Choudhary lying deposited in this Court be released in favour of the auction purchaser Lala Amar Nath Choudhary himself (it is clarified that option has been given to the counsel for auction purchaser for the documents to be handed over to him but he has refused and stated that he would like the auction purchaser to personally come and collect the papers from the Court);

(II) List the matter for the said purpose before the Joint Registrar on 26th August, 2016 at 1600 hours;

(III) The auction purchaser Lala Amar Nath Choudhary is empowered by this Court to do all acts / deeds before the Courts / Authorities at Jammu & Kashmir to have the land admeasuring 108 kanals and 9 marlas situated at Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu transferred in his own name;

(IV) The amount of Rs.18 crores deposited by the auction purchaser in this Court together with interest accrued thereon be disbursed by the Registry in favour of the parties to the suit in accordance with their share as per the preliminary decree;

(V) The parties to the suit, on the next date of hearing as aforesaid, before the Joint Registrar to give a joint statement of the share of each of the parties in the said amount of Rs.18 crores along with the name/s in which the cheque/s is/are to be drawn by the Registry;

(VI) The Joint Registrar to, in the order of that date, clarify the said position and instruct the Registry accordingly.

(VII) Liberty is also given to the auction purchaser to, in the case of any difficulty encountered or if any further power being required, approach this Court therefor and if any defect is found in the title of the parties to the suit, to intervene in the execution of this suit vis-a-vis the other properties of the parties, for recovery of the price paid by him and for such other relief for which he may be entitled to.”

3. The aforesaid order / decree was challenged by the auction purchaser in an appeal being RFA (OS) 68/2016. The said appeal was rejected on December 13, 2018. Mr. Khatri, also submitted that the auction purchaser later approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) 786/2019 which was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on September 20, 2019 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that in order to safeguard the interest of the auction purchaser, the respondents therein (who are plaintiff and defendants herein) shall furnish Bank Guarantee pari pasu to the extent of their interest, the same to be kept alive till the title is cleared and also to furnish an undertaking to pay money along with the amount of the interest, as may be ordered in case the refund of the auction money is required.

4. He stated that the defendants will cooperate with the auction purchaser for the due execution of the decree. The Beas, applicant herein (applicant/defendant No.1) has submitted the bank guarantee which has been duly verified and marked as Ex.D1X4 by the order of the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on March 04, 2020. Despite that the money has not been released to the applicant herein.

5. In fact, he submitted that the execution of the sale deed has been delayed by the auction purchaser for one or the other reason. He stated that the parties to the suit have always supported the auction purchaser for getting the sale deed registered. In substance, he submitted that the condition imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated September 20, 2019 has been satisfied as the undertaking has already been given by the Beas (applicant / defendant No.1), which is on record.

6. He highlighted the fact that during COVID-19, the applicant / defendant No.1 had extensively become part of social activities in providing large sheds as temporary quarantine centres for affected people, shelters for lacs of migrants, helping the society at large. That apart, it is providing food arrangements for lacs of people, inasmuch as the Delhi centres were processing about 2.5 lacs and 3 lacs food packets on daily basis for the period April to mid June. In other words, the funds, if made available by this Court at this needy hour shall be used for the benefit of the society at large. Already, due to the bank guarantee, a large amount of Beas (applicant / defendant No.1) has also got stuck with their bankers.

7. Mr. Manish Sharma, learned counsel for the auction purchaser would submit that the auction purchaser has already submitted a sum of Rs.18 Crores towards the sale consideration of the property situated in R.S. Pura, Jammu with the Registry of this Court. Vide order dated November 10, 2014, the sale was affirmed in favour of the auction purchaser and it had been further directed that the receiver shall ensure that the sale deed is executed in favour of the auction purchaser by December 16, 2014.

8. He conceded to the fact that the suit was finally decreed on August 16, 2016. He also conceded to the fact that the auction purchaser had filed an appeal being RFA (OS) 68/2016, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on December 13, 2018. That apart, he also referred to the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court initiated by the auction purchaser. He also stated that despite being aware of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in terms of order dated September 20, 2019 neither plaintiffs nor the defendants herein have complied with the order within the time directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was Beas (applicant / defendant No.1) only, which belatedly filed a bank guarantee and that also not for complete amount. None of the other parties to the proceedings have till date deposited / furnished the bank guarantee in terms of their respective shares neither have they submitted the undertaking and nor have executed the sale deed with respect to the subject land in favour of the auction purchaser.

9. In fact, an application was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking modification of order dated September 20, 2019 by the plaintiffs and the defendants to the extent of removal of the condition of depositing bank guarantees, however the said application was dismissed. Even thereafter none of the parties except Beas (applicant/defendant No.1) who holds 9/48th share in the subject property (situated in Tehsil R.S. Pura, Jammu) has filed the bank guarantee with respect to their share of the sale consideration.

10. According to Mr. Sharma, the bank guarantee on behalf of defendant No.1 is also defective. The order dated September 20, 2019 specifically directed that the parties were to furnish bank guarantee for their respective shares along with their share of the interest. Even though the bank guarantee of defendant No.1 is worded in a manner which states that the bank guarantee is towards the share of the defendant No.1 along with its share of the interest, the amount of the bank guarantee is only equivalent to the share of the defendant No.1 in the sale proceeds. He also stated that the allegation, the auction purchaser never approached the Sub-Registrar, Jammu for registration of the sale deed is denied.

11. On the aspect of release of amount to Beas, (applicant/defendant No.1) he stated that the release of the auction money / sale consideration on a pro-rata basis cannot be allowed. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while directing the bank guarantees be furnished in order to safeguard the interest of the auction purchaser has nowhere permitted release of the sale consideration in piecemeal. According to Mr. Sharma, as the defendant No.1 holds only 9/48th share in the subject property situated at R.S. Pura, Jammu, and release of sale consideration equivalent to the share of the defendant No.1, while not securing the balance sale consideration by way of bank guarantees shall cause grave prejudice to the auction purchaser, as he has still not been able to enjoy the subject property even after having paid the sale consideration six years ago. He also stated that no fault lies with the auction purchaser for not getting the sale deed executed. In substance, he opposes this application.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, it may be stated that Mr. Manish Sharma has conceded that the Beas (applicant / defendant No.1) is a beneficiary of 9/48th share in the property in question in view of its impleadment in the Suit vide order dated April 03, 2007 of this Court. He also conceded the fact that in appeal and in SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Beas (applicant / defendant No.1) was a party and that Beas had even filed an application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for extending the time to deposit / furnish the bank guarantee which was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and pursuant to which, Beas (applicant / defendant No.1) has deposited / furnished the bank guarantee which has been exhibited by the learned Joint Registrar as Ex.D1X4.

13. Having said that the auction purchaser through counsel Mr. Manish Sharma has opposed the application primarily on the grounds:

(i) The bank guarantee on behalf of the defendants is also defective, as the amount of the bank guarantee is only equivalent to the share of the defendant No.1 in the sale proceeds.

(ii) The release of the auction money / sale consideration on a pro-rata basis cannot be allowed, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court while directing the bank guarantees be furnished in order to safeguard the interest of the auction purchaser has nowhere permitted release of the sale consideration in piecemeal.

(iii) The defendant No.1 holds only 9/48th share in the subject property at R. S. Pura, Jammu, and release of sale consideration equivalent to the share of the Beas (applicant / defendant No.1), while not securing the balance sale consideration by way of bank guarantees shall cause grave prejudice to the auction purchaser.

14. I am not in agreement with the pleas advanced by Mr. Manish Sharma for the reasons that (1) this Court on August 16, 2016 had directed for the disbursing the amount in favour of the parties to the suit according to their share; (2) The appeal against the said order has been dismissed by the Division Bench and; (3) The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated September 20, 2019 secured money to be disbursed by way of bank guarantees.

15. I find that the bank guarantee bearing No. L41GOPG193020004 dated October 29, 2019 amounting to Rs.3,37,50,000/- has been furnished / filed by Beas (applicant / defendant No.1) in favour of the Registrar General of this Court and the same has been exh

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ibited as Ex.D1X4. 16. That apart, even an undertaking has been submitted by the Beas (applicant / defendant No.1) (at page 59 of volume 3 of the Applications folder). The plea of Mr. Manish Sharma that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not ordered the release of the sale consideration in piecemeal is also not appealing as there is no such order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Once the bank guarantee as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been furnished / deposited for securing the auction purchaser, there is no bar to release the amount in favour of the Beas (applicant / defendant no.1) to the extent of the amount of the bank guarantee and no prejudice is going to be caused to the auction purchaser as the money is secured. 17. Accordingly, the application is allowed, an amount of Rs.3,37,50,000/- (which is equivalent to the amount of the bank guarantee furnished by the Beas) shall be released to the Beas (applicant / defendant No.1) from the amount deposited by the auction purchaser in the Court in terms of order dated March 14, 2014. For this purpose, the matter shall be listed before the Joint Registrar on September 07, 2020 when the counsel for the Beas (applicant / defendant No.1) / authorized representative of Beas (with proper authority) and the auction purchaser and / or his counsel shall be present. 18. The application is disposed of.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

05-10-2020 Mohd. Sher Nabi Chaman Versus Udit Prakash Rai & Another High Court of Delhi
14-09-2020 Deepak Rai Versus State of Sikkim, Represented by and through Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, Tashiling, Gangtok High Court of Sikkim
14-09-2020 Naresh Kumar Rai Versus State of Sikkim, Through Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok & Another High Court of Sikkim
07-09-2020 Rai Singh Versus State of M.P. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
04-09-2020 Vijay Singh Yadav Versus Ajay Shanker Rai High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-08-2020 Davinder Nath Sethi & Another Versus M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-08-2020 Sangam Rai & Another Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
18-08-2020 Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav @ Ritlal Ray @ Ritlal Prasad Singh Versus The U.O.I. through B. Hazara, Assistant Director, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (Complainant) & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-08-2020 Dr. Samir Rai & Another Versus Medanta Hospital & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Som Nath Bhatt Versus Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Som Nath Bhatt Versus Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-07-2020 Kamlesh Devi & Others Versus Bhola Nath & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
16-07-2020 Satendra Nath Biswas Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Urban, Administration, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
26-06-2020 Chandra Bahadur Rai & Others Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
24-06-2020 Rajesh Ray @ Rajesh Rai Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-06-2020 Aditya Nath Jha Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
11-06-2020 State of HP Versus Dina Nath (Since Deceased) & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
04-06-2020 Balakrishna Rai Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
26-05-2020 Dharmaan Rai Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
06-05-2020 Triloki Nath Singh Versus Anirudh Singh(D) Thr. Lrs & Others Supreme Court of India
28-04-2020 Sambhu Nath & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-04-2020 Mohd. Burhan Versus Triloki Nath Nirmal High Court of Delhi
21-03-2020 Yabesh Rai Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
14-03-2020 State of Sikkim Versus Karna Bahadur Rai High Court of Sikkim
05-03-2020 Saurendra Nath Sen Versus M/s. Ranjan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-03-2020 Debashish Nath Versus The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Information and Cultural Affairs, Government of Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura
28-02-2020 N. Balachandra Rai Versus Jyothsna Ramesh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-02-2020 Arvind Nanda Versus State High Court of Delhi
19-02-2020 Krishnaveni Rai Versus Pankaj Rai & Another Supreme Court of India
18-02-2020 Shakti Nath & Others V/S Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment No.3 Ltd. And Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 M/s. Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram Charities & Others Versus M/s. Bhaskar Raju & Brothers & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 Subhash @ Subash Deb Nath Versus On Death of Bishnupada Saha His Legal Heirs - Archana Saha & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-02-2020 Axis Bank V/S Shyambeer Nath Tiwari and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
07-02-2020 Union of India & Another Versus Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit Supreme Court of India
07-02-2020 Paras Nath Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-02-2020 Parmeshwar Nanda & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand Through Chief Secretary & Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Jhulan Rai Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
23-01-2020 Governing Body Swami Shraddhanand College Versus Amar Nath Jha & Another Supreme Court of India
16-01-2020 Ram Dayal Rai Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-01-2020 Sanjay Jaswal Versus S.K. Nanda Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
08-01-2020 Maj Pankaj Rai Versus Krishna Veni Rai, Nee Krishnaveni Challa High Court of for the State of Telangana
07-01-2020 Kamal Nath, Accountant, Divisional Office Tezpur, Sonitpur Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
07-01-2020 Biswanath Pal Versus Sankar Nath Pal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-01-2020 Surinder Nath Kesar Versus Board of School Education & Others Supreme Court of India
03-01-2020 Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Manager, New Delhi & Another Versus Dr. Vipul Rai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-01-2020 Prasanta Lenka Versus Birendra Nath Rana High Court of Orissa
24-12-2019 Rabindra Nath Dam & Another Versus State of West Bengal & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-12-2019 Ajith Kumar Rai & Another Versus The State of Karnataka Department of Revenue Represented by its Principal Secretary & Another High Court of Karnataka
14-12-2019 Yogesh Rai & Others Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
02-12-2019 State of Maharashtra & Another Versus Ku. Nanda Supreme Court of India
22-11-2019 Dwijendra Nath Mishra Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
22-11-2019 Prakati Rai & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others Supreme Court of India
14-11-2019 Jayanti Das Nath Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence (D), New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-11-2019 Savrunisha & Others Versus Bhola Nath High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-09-2019 Dr. Nurul Islam & Others Versus Naba Kumar Nanda West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-09-2019 Shri Karma Loday Bhutia Versus Shri Bir Bahadur Rai @ B.B. Rai High Court of Sikkim
29-09-2019 Jonali Nath Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
24-09-2019 Dina Nath (D ) By Lrs. & Another Versus Subhash Chand Saini & Others Supreme Court of India
23-09-2019 M/s. Bishamber Dass Pran Nath & Another Versus Madhu Kapoor & Another High Court of Delhi
20-09-2019 Amar Rai Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-09-2019 Gouri Saha Versus Amarendra Nath Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-09-2019 National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Shambhu Nath Upadhyay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-09-2019 Pankaj @ Pankaj Kumar Rai & Others Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
04-09-2019 Kishore Dungmali (Rai) Versus Shiva Kumar Rai (Dungmali) & Others High Court of Sikkim
28-08-2019 Paras Nath & Others Versus Addl. Dist. Judge A. Nagar & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-08-2019 Alok Nath Chandra Versus State Bank of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-08-2019 Goa State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Versus Krishna Nath A. (Dead) Through Lrs. & Others Supreme Court of India
19-08-2019 Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman, Faizabad Uttar Pradesh Versus Nath Bux Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-08-2019 Sambhu Nath Dan Versus Kanak Kumar Kundu @ Provat Kumar Kundu High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-08-2019 M/s. Nath Seeds Ltd. Versus Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation Supreme Court of India
02-08-2019 Union Public Service Commission & Another Versus Mayank Rai & Others Supreme Court of India
01-08-2019 Ram Pravesh Rai Versus State of Bihar through Home Secretary, Department of Home High Court of Judicature at Patna
29-07-2019 Sumit Rai @ Subodh Rai Versus State High Court of Delhi
26-07-2019 B. Nanda Sulochana Perera Versus D.D. Upul Shantha de Alwis Commissioner of Co-operative Development and Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Another Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
25-07-2019 State Bank of India & Others Versus Atindra Nath Bhattacharyya & Another Supreme Court of India
22-07-2019 Nanda Kunkolienkar Versus State of Goa, Through Public Prosecutor In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
22-07-2019 Kawsik Nath Versus The State of Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura
18-07-2019 M/s. Nanda Construction Versus Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Another High Court of Orissa
17-07-2019 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti & Another Versus M/s. Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mill Ltd. & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
16-07-2019 Gouri Saha Versus Amarendra Nath Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-07-2019 Mohan Rai alias Shekar Rai Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
15-07-2019 Ganesh @ Lachman Shaw Versus Versus Amar Nath Shaw High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-07-2019 Damyanti Devi Versus Chandra Shekhar Rai High Court of Jharkhand
12-07-2019 Kumar Rai Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
08-07-2019 Raj Kumar & Another Versus Som Nath High Court of Himachal Pradesh
04-07-2019 Dinbandhu Rai Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-06-2019 Komal Prasad Shukla & Others Versus Raj Nath Yadav & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-06-2019 Amar Nath Versus Bhagat Chand High Court of Himachal Pradesh
14-06-2019 Narendra Nath Mishra & Others Versus Binod Kumar & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-06-2019 Chaman Lal & Others Versus Rakesh Nanda & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
31-05-2019 Ram Nath & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
31-05-2019 Pranay Nath Versus State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
28-05-2019 Mamta Rai Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-05-2019 Nanda Kishore Prosad Versus Raj Kumar Ram High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
22-05-2019 Amarendra Nath Tewary Versus Basana Lohar (Midya) High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-05-2019 B. Shivaram Rai Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
13-05-2019 Nanda Kishore Mishra Versus State of Orissa & Others High Court of Orissa
10-05-2019 Ashim Stanislaus Rai Versus The State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
09-05-2019 Lakshya Nath Sonowal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
09-05-2019 State of Sikkim Versus Girjaman Rai @ Kami & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh