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



G. Chitra Poornima & Others v/s State of Karnataka, Rep. by Under Secretary Revenue Department & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- REP CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26921TN2005PTC055138

Company & Directors' Information:- CHITRA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993DL1985PTC022020

Company & Directors' Information:- THE CHITRA LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1936PTC002450

    W.P. No. 8972 of 2020 (KLR-LG)

    Decided On, 10 September 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN

    For the Petitioners: K.G. Raghavan, Senior Advocate, Hegde Ganapati Narayan, M/s. Dua Associates, Advocates. For the Respondents: R. Subramanya, AAG, B.G. Namitha Mahesh, HCGP.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned show cause notices dated 06.06.2020 relating to proceedings bearing No.L.N.D. (E) Cr/104/2019-20 issued by the Respondent No.2 (Vide Annexure-A) and Consequently quash the proceedings bearing No.L.N.D. (E) Cr/104/2019-20 before Respondent No.2 and etc.)

Through Video Conference:

1. Heard.

2. Aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 06.06.2020 bearing No.L.N.D (POO) CR/104/2019-20 issued by respondent no.2 and the consequent suo motu proceedings initiated by respondent no.2 against the petitioners, the instant writ petition is filed.

3. One late George Thangaiah, who was the husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner nos.2 and 3, was granted a total of 16 guntas of lands in Survey Nos.2/2, 7/1A and 7/1B of Binnamangala Manavarthe Kaval Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk vide order dated 26.12.1975 for non-agricultural purpose. It was granted at an upset price of Rs.12,000/- per acre. After the death of George Thangaiah, the petitioners have inherited the same and are in peaceful possession of the same. The said George Thangaiah was also the owner of certain adjoining lands to the property granted to him. The Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA') thereafter has sanctioned development plan in respect of the property in question way back in the year 1977 and the said property has been developed. The fact that the property was allotted for non-agricultural purpose and the BDA sanctioning a development plan indicates that the property in question is no longer a kharab land.

4. Late George Thangaiah and the petitioners have been in enjoyment of the property since the date of its allotment in the year 1975. However, the respondents with an ulterior motive have been issuing certain show cause notices and initiating certain proceedings since 2016. The petitioners have duly replied to those notices and are defending themselves in the proceedings initiated against them. The present impugned notice has been issued as late as 06.06.2020 under Rule 25(1) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The said notice is issued on the ground that the lands in question are "B" kharab lands and the same were not allotted to the petitioners in accordance with law. On the said ground, the petitioners have been asked to show cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled and the lands be appropriated by the Government.

5. The petitioners have participated in the proceedings pursuant to the said notice. When the proceedings were going on, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent no.2 has passed an order cancelling the allotment of 16 guntas of phut kharab lands in Survey Nos.2/2, 7/1A and 7/1B of Binnamangala Manavarthe Kaval village. The petitioners in the instant writ petition, as mentioned above, have sought for quashing of the show cause notice and the consequential proceedings.

6. The petitioners have sought for quashing the show cause notice on the ground that the proceedings for cancellation are being issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 while the allotment was made under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); the issuance of notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice and it is barred by time; the act of the BDA and other authorities sanctioning development plan amounts to an estoppel on respondents from issuing such notice; and the notice issued is not in accordance with law.

7. The respondents have filed their objections statement and have raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is premature and what has been issued is only a show cause notice. The petitioners have participated in the same and they cannot prefer a writ petition. Section 49 of the Act provides for an appeal from the original orders and it is an alternative and efficacious remedy. In the light of the same, the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition. All the grounds raised by the petitioners in the writ petition have been considered by respondent no.2 in his order dated 19.08.2020. The finding is that the predecessor in title of the petitioners has obtained the grant by playing fraud and on the said ground, the grant has been cancelled and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they have to prefer an appeal.

8. It is true that Section 49 of the Act provides for an appeal from original orders such as the order passed by respondent no.2 in respect of the property in question pursuant to the show cause notice dated 06.06.2020 issued by him. However, apart from other grounds, the petitioners have raised the ground of limitation i.e., whether respondent no.2 could have issued the impugned show cause notice dated 06.06.2020 to cancel the grant made way back in the year 1975. Limitation is a question of jurisdiction.

9. It is true that any grant made as in the instant case can be suo motu enquired into by respondent no.2 and the said grant can be cancelled, if it is found that the same is obtained by making false or fraudulent representation or if it is contrary to the Rules. There is no period of limitation prescribed under any statute as to the time within which respondent no.2 has to exercise his powers under Rule 25 of the Rules and cancel the grant. It is a well settled proposition of law that when such limitation is not prescribed the same has to be exercised within a reasonable period. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AND ANOTHER V. D. NARSING RAO AND OTHERS [(2015) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 695]. Paragraphs 25 and 31 of the said judgment read as under:

"25. The legal position is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court which have laid down that even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of any power, revisional or otherwise, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. This is so even in cases where allegations of fraud have necessitated the exercise of any corrective power. We may briefly refer to some of the decisions only to bring home the point that the absence of a stipulated period of limitation makes little or no difference insofar as the exercise of the power is concerned which ought to be permissible only when the power is invoked within a reasonable period.

31. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority."

10. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in N. RAGHAVENDRA MURTHY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA [2020 SCC ONLINE KAR 860] has held as under:

"(vi) It is settled position in law that power conferred on an Authority or by a statute must be exercised within a reasonable period of time. The Apex Court in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale33 was considering the case of exercise of revisional power under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Admittedly, there was no time limit prescribed for exercise of such power under the law and when such power was sought to be exercised after 17 years, it was held as follows:-

"11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the Legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein."

In the present case, the exercise of power asserting the State's claim in the year 2011-2012 having the consequence of canceling mutations effected several decades ago as reflected in Column No.3 of the Table extracted hereinabove is clearly an effort to exercise power conferred beyond a reasonable period of time and hence impermissible. Accordingly, in such of the cases where mutation has been effected pursuant to the transfer by the Maharaja of Mysore at the first instance as indicated in Column No.3, exercise of power in the year 2010, 2011-2012 many decades subsequent to the effecting of such mutations is bad in law, as power is not only sought to be exercised after a reasonable period of time, but beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

(e) Alternative remedy:

(i) It is the contention of the State that as against the impugned order passed by the Deputy commissioner under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act, there are alternative remedies available as provided under Section 67(3) of the K.L.R. Act which includes filing of a civil suit against the order passed under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act or as against an order passed in revision or appeal.

(ii) On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction and if that were to be so, the writ petitions challenging the validity of such orders would be maintainable.

(iii) It is settled legal position that relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy to challenge the impugned orders as provided for under the statute instead of entertaining the writ petitions directly is a matter left to the discretion of the Court to be exercised keeping in mind the settled principle that a writ petition can be entertained directly against an order passed without jurisdiction. In fact, in the case of M. Sankaranarayanan34 in the context of a broadly similar factual matrix and legal controversy where the jurisdiction of the revenue authority under Section 67 of the K.L.R. Act to initiate proceedings in respect of time barred claims was being considered, the Apex Court has held that the challenge to a notice without jurisdiction could be directly entertained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."

11. Further, when a notice is issued, the notice should be clear and precise as to on what grounds action is proposed to be taken. It cannot be vague and ambigious.

12. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.46547/2011 (DD 14.12.2011) at paragraph 4 has held as under:

"4. The question that requires to be determined in this writ petition is whether the impugned notice is valid in law?

When a notice can be said to be valid in law? The term 'Notice' originated from the Latin word 'Notitia' which means 'being known'. It is equivalent to information, intelligence or knowledge. Notice is the starting point of any hearing. The right to fair hearing covers every stage through which an administrative adjudication passes, starting from notice to final determination. Notice embodies rule of fairness and must precede an adverse order. It should clearly state the reason as to why a party is required to appear and/or his reply is required. The party concerned should be apprised of the evidence on which the case against him is based and be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. A notice, to be valid in law, should be clear and precise so as to give the party concerned adequate information of the case he has to meet. The adequacy of notice is a relative term and must be decided with reference to each case. The test of adequacy of notice will be whether it gives sufficient information so as to enable the person concerned to put up an effective defence. If a notice is vague or it contains unspecified or unintelligible allegations, it would imply a denial of proper opportunity of being heard. Natural justice is not only a requirement of proper legal procedure but also a vital element of good administration."

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in BIECCO LAWRIE LIMITED AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER [(2009) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 32] at paragraphs 24 and 25 has held as under:

"24. It is fundamental to fair procedure that both sides should be heard-audi alteram partem i.e. hear the other side and it is often considered that it is broad enough to include the rule against bias since a fair hearing must be an unbiased hearing. One of the essential ingredients of fair hearing is that a person should be served with a proper notice i.e. a person has a right to notice. Notice should be clear and precise so as to give the other party adequate information of the case he has to meet and make an effective defence. Denial of notice and opportunity to respond result in making the administrative decision as vitiated.

25. The adequacy of notice is a relative term and must be decided with reference to each case. But generally a notice to be adequate must contain the following:

(a) time, place and nature of hearing;

(b) legal authority under which the hearing is to be held;

(c) statement of specific charges which a person has to meet."

14. In the instant case, the lands were granted to the predecessor in title of the petitioners way back in the year 1975. The said grant is sought to be cancelled in the year 2020, after a lapse of nearly 45 years. The delay in issuance of show cause notice cannot be considered reasonable. As per Article 112 of the Limitation Act, even for a suit by or on behalf of Central Government or State Government, the limitation prescribed is 30 years. Though fraud vitiates everything, the impugned show cause notice

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

does not indicate as to what action of the grantee amounted to fraud nor does it indicate as to the facts based on which the respondents have concluded that the grant was not in accordance with law. The show cause notice is bad for being issued after a lapse of nearly 45 years which is beyond reasonable time and also for not specifying the reasons on which it is sought to be cancelled. The order which is passed subsequent to the impugned notice during the pendency of the writ petition though states that the allotment is vitiated by fraud, it does not specify the facts which constitute the fraud. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned notice dated 06.06.2020 issued by respondent no.2 and subsequent proceedings pursuant to the notice are liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The show cause notice dated 06.06.2020 bearing No.L.N.D (POO) CR/104/2019-20 issued by respondent no.2 in respect of 13 guntas of land in Survey No.2/2, 1 gunta of land in Survey No.7/1A and 2 guntas of land in Survey No.7/1B of Binnamangala Manavarthe Kaval Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk under Rule 25(1) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 is hereby set aside. (iii) All proceedings and the subsequent order dated 19.08.2020 passed in No.LND(E) CR 104/2019-20 pursuant to the aforementioned notice dated 06.06.2020 are held to be null and void. In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

08-10-2020 C. Rajakumari & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Industries (MIA), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-10-2020 M/s. Thamraparni Enterprises, Rep. by its Partner K.S. Sundaram Versus M/s. Simpson and Company Ltd., Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 State of kerala, Rep. by Tahsildar, Kothamangalam Versus The Secretary, Nirmalgram Vannith Dairy Central Society Keerampara, Kothamangalam & Others High Court of Kerala
05-10-2020 A. Mohammed Ataulla & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by the SPP, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
05-10-2020 M/s. CEE DEE Yes IT Parks Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Chennai Versus The Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Supervision, Represented by its Chief General manager-in-charge, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Naveen Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
29-09-2020 Yashwanth @ Yashavant Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
25-09-2020 Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, (Presently NLC India Limited), Rep. by its General Manager (Contracts) Corporate Office, Neyveli Versus M/s. TENOVA India Pvt. Ltd., Alwarpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2020 Mallappa & Another Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
24-09-2020 Raghavan & Another Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-09-2020 Yogesh Agarwal & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. herein by: The Investigation Officer Cyber Crime Police Station (CID), Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 Nagalakshmi (died) & Another Versus Sivaprakasam, Rep.by his Power Agent and his wife Senthamil Selvi High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Rajegowda @ Guruswamy & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 Tousif Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
23-09-2020 Maharudragouda Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Ranebennur Town Police, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
23-09-2020 C.M. Gadha & Another Versus Bar Council of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 Heer A. Rajani, Rep. by her Power of Attorney Amit M. Rajani Versus M.M. Syed Sikkander, Proprietor: M/s. Syed Bearing Centre, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Ramesh Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
21-09-2020 Shivanand Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary Dept. of Revenue, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Jantra Wanida & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Yellappa Versus The Management of NWKRTC, Rep. by its Divisional Controller, Gadag High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
19-09-2020 National Investigation Agency Chikoti Garden, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by A.G. Kaiser Versus Vinay Talekar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-09-2020 M/s. Standard Metalloys Private Limited, through its Authorised Signatory Sumit Tripathi Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-09-2020 B. Ramamoorthy & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Thankappan Pillai Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
17-09-2020 Mahasamy Versus Minor Prakash, Rep. By his father & natural guardian Rajendran, Tiruppur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2020 Vangamudi Kasimayan, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., rep PP. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-09-2020 Anandi Versus State, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
16-09-2020 R. Pradeep Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 Makdum @ Makdum Shariff Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by HCGP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 P.C. Latha & Others Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
14-09-2020 Kuruva Muliniti Lakshmana, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., Rep. PP. Hyd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
14-09-2020 Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, Rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin Versus The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-09-2020 Sapna Chouhan & Another Versus State, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its President, Kanchipuram Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its Senior Manager(Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-09-2020 Zameer Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
11-09-2020 B.S. Yediyurappa Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2020 Shyam Investments, Rep. by its Partner Nina Reddy & Another Versus Masti Health & Beauty Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 Amarendra Bhagawati Versus The State of Assam Rep. By The Comm. & Secy., Deptt. of Excise, Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Ghy.-06 & Others High Court of Gauhati
11-09-2020 Mukund Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2020 M/s. S.M. Cement Industries Rep. By One of Its Partners Namely, Manoj Sureka, Assam Versus Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-09-2020 Punitha Versus State by Turuvekere Police Turuvekere, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 A. Sudharani Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
09-09-2020 R. Bharaneeswaran Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2020 Santosh @ Sada Mahadev Chand Rakodi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
09-09-2020 Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service, Rep. by its Authorized Representative J. Anjananandan Versus The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Collector of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam Versus Janaki High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Jai Bharath College of Management & Engineering Technology, Rep. by Its Chairman, Ernakulam & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Sir Venkatramanaswamy Blue Metals, Rep by its Managing Partner, M. Sivanandam & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Karur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai Versus P. Muthian High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Y. Devadas Versus State of Telangana, Rep., by Special Chief Secretary, Education Dept., Government of Telangana & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Alfadul Sobhi & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
04-09-2020 K. Ravi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Labour & Employment, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Saluvadi Sumalatha Versus The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (TREI-RB) rep., by its, Executive Officer (Convenor) & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 K. Ebnezer Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Natarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Govt. Dept. of Municipal Admin & Water Supply, City V, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 Meharaj @ Meharaj Begum Versus State by K.G. Halli P.S., Rep. by Government Pleader High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 F. Srilekha & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by S.P.P., Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 M. Ravi & Others Versus State by Vishwanathapura P.S., Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 Yedla Babulu & Others Versus State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (J.A & L.A), T.S. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-09-2020 Taba Tagar Versus The State of Arunachal Pradesh Rep. By Its Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh & Others High Court of Gauhati
03-09-2020 Kothapalli Govinda Rajulu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
03-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai. Another Versus S. Manikandan High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 Philip Stephen Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 G.C. Kishor Kumar Versus Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
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
01-09-2020 M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore Versus M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Arani Versus Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Vazhuvoor Ravi Versus The State of TamilNadu, Rep.by the Chief Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust Established and Administering, Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research, Rep. by Chairman V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 M/s. AAF India Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Jagruti Mursenia Versus M/s. KBR Industries, Represented by its Partner High Court of Karnataka
31-08-2020 M/s. Kaveri Associates, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Rishabchand Bhansali Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(1), Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2020 Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd., Rep.by its Authorized Signatory R. Eswaran Versus The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 Shifa Khairun Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to the Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
28-08-2020 Chandan @ Abcd Chandan Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor, Benglauru High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2020 Ponnayal & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Additional Chief Secretary, Highways & Minor Ports Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 M/s. Anish Orchardes Private Ltd. Rep. by its Director S. Bhavani & Others Versus The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras as Provisional Liquidator of Maxworth Orchards (India) Ltd. Orchards (India) Ltd. Rep. by Administrator K. Alagiriswami & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 K.V. Sayan & Another Versus The State rep. By Inspector of Police, Kotagiri Police Station, The Nilgiris & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 Karnataka Professional Colleges Foundation Rep. by its Secretary R.V. Govinda Rao & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Mohammed Anees Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Phatik Sonowal Versus State Of Assam Rep. By The Comm. & Secy. To The Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary), Gauhati & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Poornachandrakala Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Collegiate Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-08-2020 Praveena @ Itachi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Kamakshipalya Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Pradeep Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Bhimsen Tyagi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government (Poll), Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-08-2020 M/s. Web International Cargo Ltd., Rep. by its proprietor Srinivas P. Bhat Versus M/s. Magnum Logistics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Jayaram High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Master Vinay Bharadwaj, Rep. by his Father & Natural Guardian D.R. Shivakumar Versus M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Pradeepa Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 K. Ranga Rao & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
26-08-2020 M/s. Leo Activation, Division of Black Pencil Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, Rep. by Its Director Versus The 49th All India Congress of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Kochi, Represented by Its Organizing Committee Chairman, Dr. V.P. Paily High Court of Kerala
26-08-2020 Muhammed Versus State of Kerala Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam Through S.H.O. Varapuzha Police Station, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
26-08-2020 Thankappan Adishar & Others Versus Panayanarkavu Temple Trust, Rep. by Its President, Sankaranarayana Pillai @ Kochukuttan & Others High Court of Kerala