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



Dilip Kumar Sharma v/s State of Chhattisgarh


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Writ Appeal No. 472 of 2018

    Decided On, 28 February 2020

    At, High Court of Chhattisgarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU

    For the Appearing Parties: Shashank Thakur, Gagan Tiwari, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. Correctness and sustainability of order dated 06.04.2018 passed in Writ Petition (Cr.) No.355 of 2017 is put to challenge in this writ appeal. The Appellant has questioned the grant of sanction dated 17.05.2017 passed by Respondent No.5 for prosecution of the Appellant under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') in the writ petition, which came to be dismissed.

2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, the Appellant was working as Technical Assistant with Respondent No.4 i.e. Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation Raipur and was posted as Godown In-charge at Ware Housing Corporation, Balod. On anonymous complaint, Anti Corruption Bureau registered Crime bearing No.9/2015 mentioning therein the allegation with regard to the illegal recovery of amount from rice millers. As the Appellant was working as public servant, the Investigating Agency moved an application under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 for grant of sanction for prosecution of the Appellant. Initially the application for grant of sanction was refused, but subsequently sanction was ordered.

3. In the writ petition, the Appellant has challenged the grant of sanction of his prosecution in Crime No.15/2015 registered by Anti corruption Bureau, Raipur for offence under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988. The challenge was on the ground that the Sanctioning Authority rejected the application under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 vide order dated 29.07.2016 by a reasoned order, but subsequently, on letter dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure P/5) written by Additional Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Respondent No.5 has granted sanction for prosecution of the Appellant in Crime No.15/2015 vide order dated 17.05.2017.

4. The grant of sanction for prosecution of the Appellant in Crime No.15/2015 was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that earlier Sanctioning Authority has rejected the application under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 and refused to grant sanction by a detailed order, but Respondent No.5 without there being any fresh material collected and placed before him by Investigating Agency, has reviewed its own order, for which, Respondent No.5 has no power of review.

5. The Respondents submitted reply mentioning therein that the rejection of first application under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 was on wrong premise as the Sanctioning Authority arrived at a conclusion that no sanction can be accorded under the same provision and offence and under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, a person cannot be prosecuted and punished for one offence twice.

6. The conclusion of the Sanctioning Authority was not correct and accordingly it was corrected by passing another order on 17.05.2017 whereby sanction for prosecution has been ordered. The offences which are subject matter of Crime No.9/2015 is for the offences under Sections 11, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and under Sections 109, 120-B, 420 and 409 of the IPC whereas the offences in Crime No.15/2015 which is subject matter of the writ petition is for the offences under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988. The nature of offences in both the crime numbers are different.

7. Respondents No.4 and 5 have specifically pleaded that the order of sanction dated 17.05.2017 has been passed after following due procedure. Respondent No.5 has obtained authorization from Board of Directors and it is only thereafter, Respondent No.5 proceeded and granted sanction vide order dated 17.05.2017 (Annexure P/1).

8. The learned Single Judge while considering the materials and pleadings made by respective parties, submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also considering the relevant laws/rulings on the issue, dismissed the writ petition and held that the Sanctioning Authority was justified in holding that the grant of sanction under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 is made out, prosecution under the Act of 1988 cannot be quashed on account of irregularity in granting sanction by the Authority unless it is satisfied such error/irregularity has resulted in failure of justice, which the learned counsel for the Petitioner therein failed to demonstrate.

9. Shri Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Anti Corruption Bureau registered the Crime No.9/2015 on the same material and registered offences under Sections 11, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 as well as Sections 109, 120-B, 420 and 409 of the IPC. The second Crime No.15/2015 is also arising out of same complaint and the seizure made by Investigating Agency in Crime No.9/2015. It is pointed out that the Sanctioning Authority had already rejected application under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 against the Appellant for offences under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 by a detailed and reasoned order. The Sanctioning Authority has no jurisdiction to review its earlier order without there being any fresh material placed before him, by the Investigating Agency. In this case, the Anti Corporation Bureau has not produced any fresh material for sanction for prosecution in another crime against the Appellant. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that in Crime No.9/2015, in which, the sanction was granted under Section 19 of the Act of 1988, the Investigating Agency has also submitted chargesheet before the Competent Court. The sanction granted byRespondent No.5 vide order dated 17.05.2017 was only under compulsion made by Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure P/5). Respondent No.2 has misused his office by writing a letter dated 29.08.2016 to Respondent No.5. The grant of sanction is only because of the pressure made by Respondent No.2 and not by applying mind on the application forwarded before Respondent No.5. He also pointed out that once the Sanctioning Authority after application of mind rejected the request/application under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 by a detailed and reasoned order, then, the said Authority could not have granted sanction. He placed reliance on the ruling rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen, 2010 14 SCC 527 in support of his contention. He has also placed reliance on the ruling of State Through Anti- Corporation Bureau, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay v. Krishanchand Khushalchand Jagtiani, 1996 AIR(SC) 1910 and submits that Section 19 of the Act of 1988 is only to save the Government Officials from unnecessary harassment and the Appellant in this case, is put to harassment mentally by registering two crimes against him for one and same allegation.

10. Per contra, Shri Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate representing the State submits that the submission made by learned counsel for the Appellant that here it is not a case that consideration in the order of grant of sanction vide Annexure P/1 is based on new material, but in fact, it is a case where second sanction order is for the other crimes. He submits that ground of sanction in question is with regard to the disproportionate property possessed by a Government employee whereas earlier offence registered for misconduct of obtaining valuable things by corrupt or illegal means along with Sections 109, 120-B, 420, 409 of the IPC. It is also pointed out that Annexure P/3 has been passed by Sanctioning Authority only taking into consideration that the sanction cannot be accorded for same act or same sections and wrongly it held to be in violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. He points out that the offences of both the crimes are different. It is also contended that from the material available on record, Respondent No.5 has sought prior approval from the Board of Directors for reconsidering the application under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 and thereby followed the entire procedure. From reading of Annexure P/1, it makes clear that the Sanctioning Authority had applied its mind and the order of sanction has been granted only when he arrived at a conclusion that the first order rejecting application under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 is on the ground that both the crimes are of similar nature and offences, whereas, Sanctioning Authority recorded a specific finding that both the cases are of different nature while granting sanction.

11. In reply to submission made by learned counsel for the State, the learned counsel for the Appellant submits that second Crime No.15/2015 has been registered based on the recovery of an amount from the possession of the Appellant during the course of investigation of the first Crime No.9/2015.

12. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record.

13. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 03.06.2015, Respondent No.5 passed an order on the application filed under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act of 1988 against the Appellant and granted sanction for his prosecution in Crime No.9/2015 for offences under Sections 109, 120-B, 420 and 409 of the IPC and Sections 11, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988. The Sanctioning Authority vide order dated 29.07.2016 has rejected the application under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 filed by Respondent No.2 considering that no sanction can be granted for offences of same act and same section whereas Respondent No.5 in its order dated 17.05.2017 while granting sanction, arrived at a finding that the sanction which is being sought by the Investigating Agency for prosecution of the Appellant was of for different offences.

14. Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988, for which, the sanction for prosecution of Appellant was granted by Respondent No.5 reads as under :

"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,

(a) * * *

(b) * * *

(c) * * *

(d) if he,

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or"

15. Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988 is for commission of misconduct by a public servant when he obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by abusing his position as a public servant.

16. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988 reads as under :

"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. -(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,

(a) * * *

(b) * * *

(c) * * *

(d) * * *

(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Explanation. For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant."

17. Perusal of both the provisions as mentioned above itself shows a vast difference between the commission of act of a public servant for the purpose of making a public officer guilty. He can be charged only for one incident irrespective to the quantum of the amount obtained by him or for any person by corrupt or illegal means abusing by his position as a public servant. The quantum of amount or value of things may be Rs.50, 100 thousand etc., but when the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988 is read, it is apparent that the public servant when found with property with him, can be held guilty of commission of an offence when he fails to satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.

18. For charging under Section 13(1)(d), proof of one incident will be sufficient, but for charging a public servant under Section 13(1) (e), it is the period of his service as public servant and his total income is to be taken into account before charging the public servant with the aforementioned section of the Act of 1988. The major difference between the two offences i.e. Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(1)(e) is that the former is an 'incident specific' offence whereas the latter is 'period specific' offence.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 2016 3 SCC 183 has considered the basic difference between Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988 and held thus :

"118. The next aspect of challenge pertains to the classification made by the legislature in respect of the accused persons facing trial under Sections 13(1) (a) to (d) and the accused persons under Section 13(1)(e). It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no intelligible differentia for making such a classification qua the offence and moreover by adopting a rigorous procedure. 119. First, we shall advert to the class of offence and the persons. It is submitted by Mr Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for some of the appellants, that when a person holding public office is accused of an offence under Sections 13(1)(a) to (d), he will be tried by the Special Courts under the 1988 Act, but when Section 13(1)(e) is combined along with other offences, namely, Sections 7 to 11 of the 1988 Act, he will be facing the trial under the Orissa Act or two trials. Mr P.S Narasimha, learned Senior Counsel, would contend that the bifurcation of offences defeats the concept of classification, for it pertains to a "stand-alone offence", though no discernible principle is perceptible. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that there is no difference between Sections 13(1)(a) to (d) and Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, but the legislature has made a special classification which the law does not countenance. It is also canvassed that a person not holding high public or political office would be tried by the Special Judge under the 1988 Act, whereas the differentiated category will be tried by the Orissa Act as a consequence of which an unacceptable discrimination takes place. It is contended that the only basis of classification for choosing a different forum with a different procedure is that the accused persons held "high public or high political office" though there can be cases where holders of low public office can amass assets by illegal means but they would not be liable to face confiscation proceedings as provided under the Orissa Act. It has been argued that the classification is not to be done on the basis of post which a public servant holds.

121. The submission of Mr Narasimha, learned Senior Counsel and others, as we have referred to earlier, is that it is a micro-mini classification and classification is on the base of a standalone offence or to put it differently, it is a classification qua a singular class. It is to be noted that Section 13(1)(e) has its own significance in the context of the range of offences provided under the 1988 Act. Section 13(1)(e) covers a period which is called check period. It pertains to amassing of disproportionate assets. The condition precedent is that the accused is prima facie found in possession of disproportionate properties or possessing resources not known to his sources of income. It is obligatory on the part of the accused in that case to explain his sources, which has been the basis for accumulating the assets which are alleged to be disproportionate. The offences under Sections 13(1)(a) to (d) in a broad way can be called incident-specific or situation-specific whereas the offence under Section 13(1)(e) is period-specific and it is not incident-specific. There can be different check periods. A person holding high public office or political office has opportunities to accumulate disproportionate assets other than his known sources of income. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that disproportionate assets can be accumulated by the persons working in the lesser rank or not holding such high offices. This submission is noted only to be rejected, for the holders of high post or high public office do definitely enjoy a distinguished position in contrast to other categories of officers or post-holders. They form a separate class. The legislature, regard being had to the position the public servant holds, has put them in a different class. There is a manifest reason that sustains the said classification. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the provision suffers because of underinclusive classification but the same does not impress us as in the instant case we are disposed to think that there is a perceptible differential in such exclusion. The Court cannot adopt an attitude to scrutinise a provision with mathematical exactitude. A pedantic approach in this regard cannot be visualised. The learned counsel for the State of Odisha would submit that the distinction is writ large and the legislature in its wisdom has carved out the offence of Section 13(1)(e) to be tried by Special Courts in a speedy manner. It is urged by him that the onus is on the accused to prove that the asset is not disproportionate and within the known sources of his income. He has drawn inspiration from P. Nallamal v. State P. Nallammal v. State, 1999 6 SCC 559, wherein it has been held that the words "known sources of income" have to be understood as "any lawful source". That apart, the Explanation to Section 13(1) (e) further enjoins that receipt of such income should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with the provisions of any law applicable to such public servant at the relevant time. Such a public servant cannot escape from Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act by showing other legally forbidden sources, albeit such sources are outside the purview of clauses (a) to (d) of the subsection."

20. The rejection of an application under Section 19 one of Act of 1988 by Respondent No.5 on 29.07.2016 was only on the count that one person cannot be prosecuted and punished for more than once for same offence as the sanction for prosecution has been sought on similar section under the similar offence. There is no bar for exercising the jurisdiction once again when the said jurisdiction/power has been exercised on earlier occasion and no specific power of review is required for the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Anr. v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti, 2010 AIR(SCW) 1186 has held that the power to grant sanction is administrative in character and hence in our considered opinion, Respondent No.5 who is head of the Institution in exercise of his administrative power can very well reconsider the application for grant of sanction, if placed, before him. The only rider has been put that the power should be exercised with application of mind taking into consideration the material placed before it and if found that fresh materials are placed or arrived at a conclusion that the earlier order of rejection of an application of selection is based on consideration of an irrelevant fact. The reason assigned for rejection of an application for grant of sanction appears to this Court is on consideration of irrelevant fact as the Sanctioning Authority has rejected the application taking note that for same offence and same provision of same act, second sanction cannot be granted, which cannot be said to be relevant consideration of the fact.

21. The learned Single Judge while taking note of the various rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dismissed the writ petition by assigning reasons as under:

"20. Taking note of the aforesaid grounds for reviewing/reconsidering the order under Section 19 of the Act of 1988, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that in the present case, the sanctioning authority while rejecting the application under Section 19 of the Act in its order dated 29-7-2016 apart from other grounds, merely impressed with the fact that the sanction is being sought for the petitioner to prosecute him twice for the offence committed once which is not permissible, whereas it was subsequently brought to his notice that Crime No.9/2015 relates to commission of offence under Sections 109, 120-B, 420 and 409 of the IPC and Sections 11, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 i.e. a public servant is said to have committed the offence of criminal misconduct by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest, whereas Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988 provides that a public servant is said to have committed the offence of criminal misconduct if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. The said facts having been brought to the notice of the sanctioning authority, the sanctioning authority has omitted to consider relevant facts and impressed with the non-existent facts and finding that Crime No.9/2015 relates to criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988 whereas, Crime No.15/2015 relates to Section 13(1)(e) of the Act i.e. possession of property disproportionate to known sources of income which the Government servant cannot account satisfactorily. The sanctioning authority decided to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 finding prima facie case for grant of sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 which in the considered opinion of this Court is strictly in accordance

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

with law, as the relevant fact was omitted to be considered and the earlier order declining sanction was reviewed on the ground of declining sanction by omitting to consider the relevant fact. In the aforesaid order of the sanctioning authority, I do not find any jurisdictional error. The learned sanctioning authority is absolutely justified in holding that case for grant of sanction under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 is made out. 25. In the instant case, neither it has been pleaded nor it has been demonstrated that the order granting sanction has resulted into failure of justice as it has clearly been held that the power of review can be exercised when irrelevant consideration has been taken into account in the earlier order and relevant consideration has been ignored while passing the order. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. The sanctioning authority is justified in granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioner under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 for his prosecution under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988." 22. The judgment of Nishant Sareen (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the Appellant is on different facts of case. In that case, the Sanctioning Authority while considering the same material and evidence placed before him, changed his mind, whereas the facts of the case at hand is for irrelevant consideration of the fact by the Sanctioning Authority. 23. As we have discussed in preceding paragraphs, rejection of an application for grant of sanction under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 is on the sole consideration that for similar offences, the sanction was granted earlier and no sanction is further required, whereas the Sanctioning Authority subsequently has granted sanction by recording a finding that the earlier sanction was granted for offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988 with other offences of the IPC, which is a different offence than the sanction sought for and granted for prosecution of the Appellant under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988. 24. For the foregoing discussions and considering the rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly, in Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal (supra) along with other rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court as considered by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the reasoning and rationale given by learned Single Judge for dismissal of writ petition is correct. There is no merit in the appeal. It is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

16-10-2020 Umesh Kumar Sharma Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others Supreme Court of India
15-10-2020 Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Limited Versus Piyush Kant Sharma & Others Supreme Court of India
23-09-2020 Charu Sharma & Others Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Maharshtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-09-2020 Arun Sharma Versus Roxann Sharma In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
08-09-2020 Arun Kumar Sharma Versus Adesh Goel & Others High Court of Delhi
07-09-2020 Suneeta Sharma Versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Punjab & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Kumar Versus C.B.I. High Court of Delhi
26-08-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nand Kishore Sharma & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
25-08-2020 Abhishek Sharma @ Chanchal Pandit Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-08-2020 Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Gauhati
24-08-2020 ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Through Manager, Rajasthan Versus Ram Prakash Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 H.N. Sharma & Anr versus Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2020 Nipun Sharma Versus Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
14-08-2020 Union of India & Another Versus M/s. K.C. Sharma & Co. & Others Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 V.P. Sharma & Others Versus Dr. G.S. Kochar Surgeon Urologist) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma V/S Rakesh Sharma and Others. Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Supreme Court of India
07-08-2020 Vijay Ramswarup Sharma Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
06-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Kailash Chand Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Manish Sharma & Another Versus Urmila Arora High Court of Delhi
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 Tara Prasad Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
23-06-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Through The General Manager & Another Versus Narendra Kumar Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-06-2020 Ashok Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
17-06-2020 Aman Sharma Versus The Chief Election Commissioner & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
15-06-2020 Rajan Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
02-06-2020 Prateek Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
30-05-2020 Kshitiz Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
19-05-2020 Mukesh Sharma Versus C.V. Ramana High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-05-2020 Randhir Rambrij Sharma Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
06-05-2020 Kamla Sharma Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Anurag Sarmah @ Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
22-04-2020 Anand Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-04-2020 Dr. Mahesh Sharma & Another Versus Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Rajasthan
15-04-2020 Sanjeev Sharma Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
13-04-2020 Mamta Sharma & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Mohmmad Yunus Versus Madho Prasad Sharma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
30-03-2020 Prashant Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
23-03-2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others Versus Megha Sharma & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-03-2020 Anju Sharma Versus Sunita Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
18-03-2020 Shambhu Prasad Sharma Advocate Versus Renu Jogi High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 Saurav Sharma Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
17-03-2020 Aashu Pandit @ Aashu Bajpai @ Aash Narayan Sharma Versus Union of India High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
13-03-2020 Unnati Bhardwaj & Another Versus K.P. Sharma High Court of Delhi
11-03-2020 Ajay Sharma & Others Versus Kulwant Singh High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Rampal Sharma & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-03-2020 Mithun Sharma Versus Tripura Gramin Bank & Others High Court of Tripura
05-03-2020 M/s. N.K. Enterprise, West Bengal & Another V/S Narayan Prasad Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-03-2020 Sancha Bahadur Subba Versus Ramesh Sharma High Court of Sikkim
04-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Sharma Versus Nirmaldas Manikpuri High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-03-2020 Amitabh Versus Amit Rghunandan Saran Sharma & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
25-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
24-02-2020 Sarwan Kumar Sharma Versus Ranjana Sharma @ Ranjana Rani & Another High Court of Delhi
19-02-2020 Bhupendra Sharma & Others Versus Union of India, Represented By The Secretary Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
18-02-2020 ICICI Bank Ltd., Rajashtan & Others Versus Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 Ram Prakash Sharma Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-02-2020 Vinay Sharma Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 Harinarayan Sharma Versus Vijay Kumar Soni National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2020 Umesh Chand Sharma & Others Versus Parsvnath Developers Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Lucknow, U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Shashibala M. Sharma Versus ICICI Bank Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-02-2020 Brahmacharimayum Achou Sharma & Others Versus The State of Manipur through the Chief Secretary-cum-Secretary (Power), Govt. of Manipur & Others High Court of Manipur
10-02-2020 Mukulika Sharma & Others Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-02-2020 Vipin Sharma Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
06-02-2020 Kanwar Pal Sharma Versus State (NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 Nitin Sharma Versus State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 Union of India & Another Versus Vinay Sharma & Others High Court of Delhi
04-02-2020 Shubhash Kumar Sharma Versus Harish Chander Rawal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-02-2020 Puroshattam Sharma Versus Executive Engineer, Gwalior North M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
03-02-2020 Axis Bank Limited V/S Ravindra Kumar Sharma and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
30-01-2020 Veena Rani & Others Versus Purshottam Dass Sharma & Others High Court of Delhi
30-01-2020 Sanjeev Sharma Versus Aamir Jamal & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
29-01-2020 Shivam Sharma Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
27-01-2020 M/s. CNA Exports (P) Ltd. Versus Mansi Sharma & Others High Court of Delhi
27-01-2020 Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mullanpur & Another Versus Sheshpal Sharma & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India
23-01-2020 Archna Sharma Versus Sudheer Sharma High Court of Rajasthan
22-01-2020 M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Tadepallygudem Versus V. Narahari Sharma & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
22-01-2020 Deepak Sharma Versus Jabalpur Development Authority & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
16-01-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. Managing Director & Another Versus Ramesh Kumar Sharma Supreme Court of India
15-01-2020 New Delhi Municipal Council Versus Vijay Kumar Sharma High Court of Delhi
14-01-2020 Sonia Sharma Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
14-01-2020 Vinay Sharma Versus The State of N.C.T. of Delhi Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 Goutam Buddha Agrawal Versus Satyanarayan Sharma & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-01-2020 Badri Narayan Sharma V/S Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
08-01-2020 Badri Narayan Sharma Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-01-2020 J.S. Sharma & Sons Versus Shiv Devi Meena High Court of Delhi
03-01-2020 Kartik Sharma & Others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
02-01-2020 Mithun Kumar Sharma Versus Mamta Sharma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
23-12-2019 BPTP Ltd., Through its Managing Director, New Delhi Versus Pradeep Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-12-2019 Indrakumar Sharma Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
18-12-2019 Ambika Jain & Others Versus Ram Prakash Sharma & Others High Court of Delhi
17-12-2019 Raj Kumari & Others Versus Surinder Pal Sharma Supreme Court of India
16-12-2019 Savita Sharma & Others Versus Master Abeer Singh & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh