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



Gokul Prasad v/s State Of Bihar


Company & Directors' Information:- PRASAD CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32301TN1994PTC028160

Company & Directors' Information:- PRASAD AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1995PTC068088

Company & Directors' Information:- M. PRASAD AND CO LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB1999PLC090325

Company & Directors' Information:- H PRASAD & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1944PTC011797

    Decided On, 30 January 2008

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA

    For the Appearing Parties: K.D. Chatterji, Parul Rajan, V.K. Tripathi, Chitranjan Sinha, Umesh Lal Verma, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(1.) FREE-HOLD land measuring 1328 sq. ft. With building thereon including the business, which was being run in the name and style of M/s. Vivek Printing Press, shahganj in the town of Patna, originally belonged to a partnership firm, of which the writ petitioner Gokul Prasad was one of the partners. Said partnership firm fell in arrears and action was taken under s. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Writ petitioner purchased the property in an auction sale by the Bihar State financial Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' at a price which was outstanding against the partnership firm. The outstanding dues against the partnership firm were in the vicinity of Rs. 3 lacs. Writ petitioner got exclusive possession of the property in the year 1991. He deposited rs. 80. 000/ Rs. 27. 000/- and Rs. 40. 000/-total amounting to Rs. 1,47,000/- in the year 1991, 1994 and 1996 respectively, but thereafter did not deposit any amount and thus, fell in arrears.

(2.) THE Corporation issued advertisement, which was published in the Newspaper 'hindustan Times' in its issue dated 11th of december, 2002. According to the advertisement in pursuance of the recovery action initiated under S. 29 of the State Financial corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,' the Corporation had received the offer for sale of the assets of the writ petitioner for Rs. 8. 25 lacs. The Corporation invited the offer from interested parties to purchase the assets on substantially better price along with earnest money. The offers received in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement were not to the satisfaction of the Corporation and as such, no sale was made in pursuance thereof.

(3.) THE Corporation negotiated with the prospective purchasers, namely, respondent nos. 4 to 8, who agreed to purchase assets for a total sum of Rs. 8. 25 lacs. They deposited the entire amount In one instalment. Ultimately the Corporation took over the mortgaged/hypothecated assets by order contained in memo dated 25-9-2007 and handed over the possession of the mortgaged/hypothecated assets to them.

(4.) WRIT petitioner challenged the said order by filing the writ application. A learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 13-9-2005 passed in C. W. J. C. No. 11333 of 2003 (Gokul Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors), quashed the order dated 25-9-2003 and while doing so, it observed that the petitioner did not get 21 days clear notice to retain the property on matching terms. The learned single Judge also took notice of the plea of the writ petitioner that he became a defaulter for the circumstances beyond his control but he is now in a position to repay the entire dues to the Corporation with up-to-date interest in single instalment. In the opinion of the learned single Judge, the property being capable of fetching a much higher amount than the amount paid by the purchaser, deemed expedient to give to the writ petitioner one more opportunity to retain the property. This Court, accordingly, directed the Corporation to supply to the writ petitioner his entire dues with interest calculated as on 30-11-2005. This Court further directed that on deposit of the aforesaid amount along with a further sum of rs. 50,000/- by 30-11-2005, the Corporation shall refund to the purchasers the amount so deposited and on such payment, the purchasers shall handover the possession of the property to the Corporation within a stipulated time, which in turn, shall handover its possession to the writ petitioner.

(5.) THE Corporation, aggrieved by the finding of the learned single Judge that no valid notice under S. 29 of the Act was given to the petitioner, has preferred appeal under cl. X of the Letters Patent, which has been registered as L. P. A. No. 1258 of 2005 (The bihar State Financial Corporation v. Gokul Prasad and Ors.)

(6.) WRIT petitioner, aggrieved by the order by which restoration of possession of the mortgaged assets on deposit of an amount of Rs. 8. 25 lacs was directed, has also preferred appeal under Cl. X of the Letters Patent.

(7.) BOTH the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(8.) BEFORE I advert to the submission advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant, it is relevant here to state that he filed M. J. C. No. 3182 of 2005 (Gokul Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors) for extending the time to deposit the dues for further period of six months from 30-11 -2005. Said prayer was rejected by order dated 20-4-2006.

(9.) MR. Umesh Lal Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant, submits that the learned single judge having held the notice under S. 29 of the Act to be invalid, ought not to have put condition for restoration of possession.

(10.) MR. K. D. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation as also Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the purchasers, however, contend that the learned single judge directed for restoration of possession on the writ petitioner's undertaking that it shall pay the dues in one instalment within the stipulated time. In fact, he filed application for getting time to deposit the dues but having failed to get the time to deposit, cannot be allowed to assail that portion of the judgment. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Kumud Kumar v. Central Bank of India (2000) 9 SCC 244: air 2000 SC 3552.

(11.) HAVING considered the rival submission, i am of the opinion that in the peculiar facts of the present case, the appellant cannot be permitted to assail that portion of the judgment. Writ petitioner-appellant offered before the learned single Judge that he shall pay the amount and at his offer, the learned single Judge thought it appropriate to give him one more opportunity. Relevant portion of the judgment of the learned single Judge in this regard is reproduced below:

"11. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he became a defaulter for circumstances beyond his control, but is now in a position to repay the entire dues to the corporation as on the date of the final payment with up to date interest in single instalment. In view of the location of the property situate in a very busy commercial market of Patna, the property is capable of fetching a much higher amount than the sum of rs. 8. 25 lacs for which the same has been sold to respondent No. 4. The petitioner's offer will now bring to the Corporation a much higher amount than Rs. 8. 25 lacs. In that view of the matter, I should rather think that it would be appropriate if the petitioner is given one more opportunity. "

"12. Let the Corporation supply to the petitioner within a period of two weeks the entire dues against him with interest calculated as on 31-11-2005 along with a further sum of Rs. 50,000. 00. On deposit of the same with the Corporation, the petitioner shall be entitled to recover possession of the property in question. The Corporation shall refund the sum of Rs. 8. 25 lacs plus the said sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 to respondent No. 4 and the latter shall be obliged to hand over possession of the property to the Corporation within a period of one week of receipt of rs. 8. 75 lacs which shall, in its turn, be handed over to the present petitioner forthwith. It will, however, be open to the petitioner to deposit the entire dues in instalments up to 31-11-2005. On the petitioner's failure to carry out the terms of this order, it goes without saying that he shall not get possession of the said property, the Corporation shall forfeit the entire amount deposited by him hereinafter, and he shall also render himself personally liable for violating the orders of this Court in contempt jurisdiction. "

(12.) AS a matter of fact, the appellant-writ petition had accepted the aforementioned judgment including the directions as quoted above from paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment. This fact has been brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 to 8 who with reference to the material on record in MJC No. 3182 of 2005 submitted that both in terms of the subsequent events as also on account of appellant-writ petitioner accepting the judgment is now stopped from assailing the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge. In this context, Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 4 to 8 has submitted that the direction as quoted above while allowing the writ petition of the appellant-writ petitioner was passed on 30-9-2005 and in terms of the direction of this Court given by the learned single Judge, the Bihar State Finance Corporation by its communication, dated 17-9-2005/20-10-2005 had also intimated the writ petitioner the amount of Rs. 17,94,433/-to be the amount payable to the Bihar State finance Corporation in addition to a sum of rs. 50,000. 00 as was directed by the learned single Judge. Mr. Sinha in fact had submitted that the appellant-writ petitioner on 14-11-2005 had made a request to the Bihar state Finance Corporation to make available the calculation sheet and to revise the demand so that necessary arrangement for payment could be made by him within the time fixed under the impugned order of the learned single Judge. As a matter of fact, in the submission of Mr. Sinha the letter of the appellant-writ petitioner, dated 27-11-2005 requesting the Bihar State Finance Corporation to give correct calculation sheet so that payment could be made by him in compliance of the order of the learned single judge impugned in this appeal by 30-11-2005 completely seals the fate of this appeal preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner as he had acquiesced to the order of the learned single Judge.

(13.) HAVING examined the materials on record, I am of the view that on account of subsequent events, this appeal has to be dismissed. As noted above, the direction given by the learned single Judge impugned in this appeal, dated 30-9-2005 in fact was first accepted without any demur or protest by the appellant-writ petitioner as is also apparent from his own pleadings in an application filed in this Court on 1-12-2005 seeking to get the impugned order modified only in respect of the extension of time limit. It has to be noted that the appellant-writ petitioner after requesting the Bihar State finance Corporation to give a correct calculation sheet of the dues amount as directed in the order of the learned single Judge in paragraph No. 12 quoted above, had filed an application, being MJC No. 3182 of 2005 on 1-12-2005 whose paragraph Nos. 5 to 10 along with the relief portion are relevant for the purposes of the views that I am going to take that this appeal has to be dismissed on account of the subsequent events. From paragraph Nos. 5 to 10 along with the relief portion in that MJC No. 3182 of 2005 reads as follows :-

"5. That in the light of the order dated 13-9-2005 passed in C. W. J. C. No. 11333/ 05 (Gokul Prasad v. State of Bihar and others) the Branch Manager, bihar State Financial Corporation has given a vague dues calculation letter up to 30-11-2005 vide Ref. No. 629 dated 20-10-2005 of Rs. 17,94,433. 89 excluding the Rs. 50000/- as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court to the petitioner. Photocopy of the chart vide letter No. 629 dt. 20-10-2005 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-2 to this petition. 6. That it is respectfully submitted that the dues calculation letter given by the branch Manager, Bihar State Financial corporation is too vague and amount is so huge that cannot be managed and deposited by petitioner by 31 -11 -2005 to the Corporation. 7. That it is submitted that in the interest of justice and considered the position of the petitioner and such a huge amount the time granted by the Hon'ble High Court be extended for a suitable period so that the petitioner may be able to deposit the dues of the Corporation. 8. That the property in question is only source of livelihood of the petitioner. 9. That petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and debarred from the fruits of the order of this Hon'ble Court if the date of deposition of dues dated 31-11-2005 be not extended for a suitable time to deposit the entire dues of the Corporation. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the date of deposition of dues dated 31-11 -2005 be extended at last for further period of six months so that the petitioner may able to deposit such a huge amount. It is therefore, prayed that your Lordships be graciously pleased to extend the date of deposit the dues dt. 31-11-2005 further period of six months and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper. And for this petitioner shall ever pray. "

(14.) IT has to be noted that the said application was heard by the learned single Judge and the same was dismissed by an order dated, 20-4-2006 wherein he had held as follows :-

"heard Mr. Umesh Lal Verma for the petitioner, and Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 (Bihar State Financial Corporation), which was disposed of by order dated 13-9-2005 (Annexure 1), whereby the present petitioner was directed to deposit the amount indicated therein on or before 3-11-2005 where after he will be entitled to recover possession of the property in question. The petitioner prays that he has not been able to arrange the money and, therefore, the time granted by that order may be suitably extended. 2. Learned counsel for the Corporation opposes this application and submits that it is not a bona fide submission. He has not deposited any amount at all since the date of the order. He further submits that the petitioner is trying to create his defence in the Corporation's contempt application filed with respect to non-compliance of the said order dated 13-9-2005 (Annexure-1). 3. On perusal of the materials on record and consideration of submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to extend the time granted by the said order. Two and half months was adequate time to make the deposits. No amount at all has been deposited till date. 4. This application is accordingly rejected".

(15.) IN fact, the present appeal by the appellant-writ petitioner came to be filed only after the dismissal of MJC No. 3182 of 2005 but not a word was said in the memo of appeal as with regard to subsequent event which in my opinion had rendered the appeal fit to be dismissed. In fact in the appeal in hand when the writ petitioner had prayed for setting aside part of the order, he definitely intends to get the paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of the judgment set aside because all other paragraphs with the findings therein are in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner whose writ application in fact was allowed by the learned single Judge by the impugned judgment. Therefore, when the appellant-writ petitioner had already accepted the order and wanted only extension of time and if the learned single Judge considering the earlier offer of the appellant-writ petitioner as recorded in paragraph No. 11 of the impugned judgment already quoted above had held that the appellant-writ petitioner was not acting bona fide and his application for extension of time was wholly misdirected, that part of the order passed on 20-4-2006 in MJC No. 3182 of 2005 cannot be indirectly assailed by the appellant-writ petitioner. In my opinion, on account of the subsequent events, this appeal deserves to be dismissed as the appellant-writ petitioner cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the doctrine of acquiescence which is based on the concept of equity, good conscience and justice. The view which I have taken is supported by the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Kumud Kumar (supra)where it was held that after the appellant had acquiesced to the order of the High court, he could not be allowed to avail the two remedies simultaneously.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Here also, once the appellant-writ petitioner had accepted the order of the learned single Judge impugned in this appeal unconditionally and had in fact filed an application after expiry of the time limit on 30-11-2005 seeking further extension of time to comply with the order. In my view he could not have filed and maintained this appeal. (16.) IN the face of the aforementioned facts, I am of the opinion that the appellant-writ petitioner cannot be allowed to change the stand after dismissal of MJC No. 3182 of 2005 and assail the condition which has been imposed in the impugned judgment for restoration of his assets. In fact, he had obtained this order on the basis of his own offer as is clearly recorded in paragraph No. 11 of the impugned judgment and, therefore, the appellant-writ petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate with regard to those very condition firstly by filing mjc No. 3182 of 2005 and requesting only for extension of time limit and upon its dismissal, moving this Court in appeal against those very terms and conditions. (17.) ACCORDINGLY, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single judge in the present appeal filed by the appellant-writ petitioner which must be dismissed. (18.) IN view of my finding above. Mr. K. D. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the Corporation states that the question in regard to the validity of the notice under sale order has been rendered academic. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to go into the merit of the order of the learned single judge in this regard. (19.) IN the result, L. P. A. No. 393 of 2006 is dismissed and L. P. A. No. 1258 of 2005 is disposed of with the observation aforesaid, but without any order as to cost. Order accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-07-2020 Prasad Naik & Another Versus The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, through its Member Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
24-07-2020 Siba Prasad Sharmah Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
06-07-2020 B.A.S. Devi Prasad Versus The Telangana Co-operative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-06-2020 Union Bank of India, Through Shri R. Rajendra Prasad, Branch Manager, Raichur Versus M/s. Tirumala Enterprises, Raichur National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Badri Prasad Jharia Versus Vatsalya Jharia High Court of Madhya Pradesh
25-06-2020 Firm: Narmada Prasad Rajesh Kumar, Bilaspur Versus Firm: Kailash Chand Ramesh Kumar Chandrapur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-06-2020 Sudama Prasad Nai Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh
24-06-2020 Jwala Prasad Singh Versus State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt of Bihar Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
24-06-2020 Tara Prasad Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
22-06-2020 Jayanta Prasad Banik, Assam Versus STATE of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
12-06-2020 Raghuvir Prasad Kalicharan Kaithwar, (Since deceased, through His LRs. & Others Versus Hridainarain Rampakhan Pande High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-06-2020 Pravin Kishor Prasad Singh Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
29-05-2020 Mahadev Prasad @ Shiv Ram Goojar & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-05-2020 Kumar Bimal Prasad Singh & Others Versus Hare Ram Singh & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Shiv Prasad Singh Versus Nageshwar Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-05-2020 Sreeja Prasad Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
08-05-2020 Ram Prasad Nayak Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-04-2020 Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Others Versus State of A.P. & Others Supreme Court of India
10-04-2020 Ayodhya Prasad Mishra Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
08-04-2020 Mohmmad Yunus Versus Madho Prasad Sharma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
19-03-2020 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh Versus Sharad Yadav Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Ex-Gunner Virender Prasad Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Shambhu Prasad Sharma Advocate Versus Renu Jogi High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-03-2020 Sankar Prasad Bose & Another Versus M/s. Shitala Construction Rep. by Ajit Panja & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
11-03-2020 Jyothi Prasad Versus K.V. Prakasan & Another High Court of Kerala
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 MES No. 238143, Ram Prasad Koiri & Others Versus The Union of India Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
02-03-2020 Badri Prasad Mishra Versus Moti Singh High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-02-2020 Vuchi Bhuvaneswari Prasad Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration & Urban Development & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-02-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Ashes Kiran Prasad High Court of Delhi
18-02-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited A Government of India Enterprises, Delhi & Others Versus Gopal Prasad Jaiswal High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-02-2020 Jagdish Prasad Vijay Versus Niti Aaayog, Erstwhile, Planning Commission Through The Dy. Chairman, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
14-02-2020 Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Versus The State of Bihar Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 Mathura Prasad Tripathi Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
14-02-2020 Woodland Manufacturers Limited Versus Sankar Prasad Garga & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-02-2020 Matawar Prasad Versus District Judge Shravasti & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
10-02-2020 Raj Kumar Prasad & Others Versus Som Datt Medical Centre & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
10-02-2020 Rajender Prasad Aggarwal & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
07-02-2020 Ram Prasad Versus Commissioner & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
31-01-2020 Govind Prasad Kejriwal Versus State of Bihar & Another Supreme Court of India
28-01-2020 Chandeshwar Saw Versus Brij Bhushan Prasad & Others Supreme Court of India
27-01-2020 Ramnarayan Versus & Another Geeta Prasad & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-01-2020 M/s. C.C.L. Products (India) Ltd., Rep., by its Executive Chairman, Challarajendra Prasad & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
22-01-2020 Nanakram & Another Versus Jamuna Prasad High Court of Madhya Pradesh
21-01-2020 Sant Prasad Seth Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-01-2020 K.N. Prasad Versus P.R. Gigi & Another High Court of Kerala
17-01-2020 Rajinder Prasad Aggarwal Versus Dr. Anil Kumar Narang High Court of Delhi
16-01-2020 Bhola Prasad Shukla & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
16-01-2020 Prita Prasad & Another Versus Md. Khalil & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-01-2020 The Sada Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., through its General Manager, Pratosh R. Lotlikar Versus Prasad U. Parab & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
10-01-2020 Sankath Prasad Versus State of Uttar Pradesh Supreme Court of India
08-01-2020 Baiju Prasad Gupta Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-01-2020 For the Petitioners: Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondents: ----------- High Court of Judicature at Patna
06-01-2020 Dr. N. Rajendra Prasad & Others Versus Lingampally Srinivas & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
03-01-2020 Prasad Brahmin Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
02-01-2020 In The Matter Of: P. Prasad & Others Versus Union of India & Others National Green Tribunal Southern Zone Chennai
02-01-2020 Sohan Prasad Choudhary Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-12-2019 Sangeeta Singh Versus Ravi Ranjan Prasad Singh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
20-12-2019 R. Ashmita Versus Narendra Prasad Jaiswal & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-12-2019 Kishor Baburao Wadaskar Prasad Versus The Collector, Collectorate Office at Chandrapur, Tah. & Dist. & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
13-12-2019 Bhubneshwar Prasad Katnala Versus Chief of the Naval Staff Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
12-12-2019 Mecon Limited Versus Sri Buddha Prasad Pal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-12-2019 Sangam Prasad Mishra & Another Versus State of U.P.Throu.Secy.Karmik Lucknow & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-12-2019 Dharmendra Prasad & Others Versus Sunil Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
04-12-2019 Koganti Venkata Siva Ramesh Prasad Versus Gogineni Sailaja High Court of Andhra Pradesh
04-12-2019 M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, V.S. Prasad Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Project Director, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-12-2019 Purbanchaliya Rail Karmi Parishad, Represented by its General Secretary, Bindeswari Prasad, having its Registered Office at Maligaon Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
22-11-2019 M.N. Prasad & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Others High Court of Kerala
21-11-2019 Gautam Prasad Shaw & Another Versus M/s. Master Plan & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-11-2019 M/s. Prasad Productions Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Prakash Raj, Proprietor, Carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Prakash Raj Productions at No.21/9, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-11-2019 Gouri Prasad Goenka Ex-Chairman of NRC Limited Versus Punjab National Bank National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
07-11-2019 S.V. Mathav Prasad Versus Apollo Surgical Instrument Co., Rep. by its Partners Sudir Batra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-11-2019 Subhash Arora Versus Prasad Process Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
04-11-2019 B. Prasad Versus Suchithra Vijayan & Another High Court of Kerala
02-11-2019 Rajendra Prasad Versus Sikkim University & Others High Court of Sikkim
25-10-2019 K. Rajendra Prasad & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
21-10-2019 Samaresh Prasad Chowdhury Versus UCO Bank & Others Supreme Court of India
21-10-2019 Manoj Prasad Verma Versus Neesu Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-10-2019 A.A. Prasad Versus State of Kerala Represented by Secretary, Department of Agriculture Development & Farmers Welfare, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
16-10-2019 Mahavir Prasad Agrawal Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited Registered Office At Yavar Jung Marg, Mumbai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
15-10-2019 Rajasthan Housing Board & Another Versus Gururaj Prasad Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-10-2019 Vijay Kumar Prasad Versus Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., through Shahi Shanker, CMD ONGC, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-10-2019 N. Shankar Prasad Versus State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
27-09-2019 Arjun Prasad Dubey Versus President, Priyadarshini Grih Nirman & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-09-2019 Krishna Prasad Verma (D) Through. LRS. Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
26-09-2019 Krishna Prasad Verma (D) Thr. Lrs. Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2019 S.V. Matha Prasad Versus Gururajan Shyank Territorial Manager-Retail Representative of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, A Government of India Undertaking Ranganathan Garden, Anna Nagar, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2019 Umesh Prasad Versus The State (Govt of Nct of Delhi) & Another High Court of Delhi
24-09-2019 M/s. Shin Ho Petrochemical (India) Ltd., Rep. by its Manager (Legal) A.Babu Prasad, Chennai Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2019 Shailendra Prasad Badoni Versus Zeestar Multi Club & Tours Pvt. Ltd. & Others SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
24-09-2019 Sri Ananta Prasad Sahu @ Sri Ananta Lal Sahu Versus Sri Gopal Sahu @ Sri Golao Lal Sahu High Court of Gauhati
20-09-2019 International Society for Krishna Consciousness Versus Ishwari Prasad Singh Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-09-2019 Yelavarthy Devendra Prasad Versus Avva Pushpa Latha High Court of Andhra Pradesh
16-09-2019 For the Appellant: Brijesh Sahai, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Nirvikar Gupta, Pradeep Kumar Chaurasia, Rajesh Pratap Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent: Govt. Advocate. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-09-2019 M/s. Nissan Motors, Corporate Office, ASV Ramana Towers, Chennai & Others Versus S. Giri Prasad High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-09-2019 Arvind Aggarwal Versus Jagwat Prasad High Court of Delhi
13-09-2019 Ravi Prasad Nayak Versus The Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2019 Sapthagiri Residents Welfare Association Rep. By Its Sercretary. B. Chandrasekhara Reddy Versus M/s. Sri Constructions, By Its Managing Partnr G Prasad & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-08-2019 M. Prasad Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Courts-A) Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
21-08-2019 Manohar Daulatram Ghansharamani Versus Janardhan Prasad Chaturvedi & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay