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



Gopi Lal Sahu v/s State of Chhattisgarh & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- GOPI (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17119GJ1988PTC010354

Company & Directors' Information:- GOPI PVT. LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1980PTC010557

Company & Directors' Information:- C. LAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2012PLC046499

    WPC No. 3723 of 2019

    Decided On, 18 October 2019

    At, High Court of Chhattisgarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY

    For the Petitioner: Vikas Dubey, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Jain, GA, R7, N.S. Dhurandhar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. With the consent of the parties matter heard finally at motion stage.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-1 dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, District Durg in Revision Case No. 205 A-89/2018-19. Vide the said impugned order, the Commissioner has affirmed the order Annexure P-6 dated 27.07.2019 passed in Panchayat Case No. 74 /A-89/2017-18.

3. The facts of the case in nut shell is that the respondent No.7 was an elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Agesara, Tahsil, Patan, District Durg. The panches of the said Gram Panchayat filed a complaint against respondent No.7 in respect of irregularities and misconduct that he had committed in the course of discharging his duties as a Sarpanch. Subsequently, motion of no confidence was put forward on 03.08.2018. The Prescribed authority took cognizance of the matter and issued notice for holding no confidence motion on 21.08.2019. The notice was duly served upon the respondent No.7 the Elected Sarpanch on 18.08.2018. The elected Sarpanch respondent No.7 participated in the no confidence motion on 21.08.2018 and motion was passed with a thumping majority of 10:1. Ten votes casted in favour of the motion and solitary one vote of respondent No.7 went against motion. One vote was declared invalid.

4. The motion of no confidence passed against the respondent No.7 was immediately challenged before the Collector. The Collector vide Annexure P-6 dated 27.07.2018 allowed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that it appears to be violation of Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat ke Sarpanch Thatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat ke President Thatha Vide-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (in short 'the Rules of 1994') wherein it was held that firstly there has to be a clear seven days notice to the Panches. The meeting of no confidence motion also ought to have been held within 15 days from the date of receipt of motion by the Panches. The order of Collector was subjected to revision by the petitioner and revisional authority also vide the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 26.09.2019 has rejected the revision affirming the order passed by the Collector. It is this order of revisional authority and the order passed by the Collector which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that there was apparently no prejudice which has been caused to the interest of the respondent No.7 in conducting of the no confidence motion and meetings thereafter. Therefore, the finding of the Collector as well as the Revisional Authority is perse bad. Contention of the petitioner further is that admittedly the complaint was firstly lodged on 03.08.2018 and prescribed authority issued notice on 14.08.2018 which was duly served upon the respondent No.7 well in advance on 18.08.2018 in respect of meeting that was to be held on 21.08.2018. Further contention of the petitioner is that he had duly participated in the proceedings and had all the reasonable opportunity to defend himself and therefore the decision of the no confidence motion cannot be under any circumstances held to be bad in law. It was also the contention of the petitioner that since respondent No.7 has miserably failed in the no confidence motion itself shows that he has lost confidence and also he has lost confidence of the other Panches. Therefore, it would not had been in the public interest to permit respondent No.7 to come back in office as that would be detrimental to the society at large.

6. Counsel for the petitioner referred to the Full Bench Decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bhulin Dewangan V. State of M.P. & Others, 2000 (4) MPHT 69 and also other judgments of this High Court wherein Full Bench decision of the M.P. High Court has been followed.

7. Per contra counsel appearing for respondent No.7 defending the two orders submitted that plain reading of the two impugned orders would clearly reflect that there is a clear violation of Rule 3 of the the Rules of 1994 (Supra) and therefore the two orders cannot be held to be bad in law. He further contended that since there is a concurrent finding of fact by the two statutory authorities, the scope of interference by the writ Court therefore gets reduced substantially and writ petition therefore deserves to be rejected.

8. Counsel for the respondent No.7 referred to the judgment of the Division of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Muku Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 1998 (2) MPLJ 661 wherein it has been held that the provisions under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 (Supra) has to be mandatorily complied with. In the event of non compliance, the entire proceedings of the no confidence motion gets vitiated.

9. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the record, it would be relevant to refer to the Full Bench Decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bhulin Dewangan(supra) wherein considering the aspect of consequences of the non compliance of the statutory provisions as in Paragraph 15 it was held as under "-:-

"15.The general rule is that non-compliance of mandatory requirement results in nullification of the Act. There are, however, several exceptions to the same. If certain requirements or conditions are provided by statute in the interest of a particular person, the requirements or conditions, although mandatory, may be waived by him if no public interest are involved and in such a case the act done will be valid even if the requirements or conditions have not been performed. This appears to be the reason for learned C.K. Prasad, J., in Dhumadhandin v. State of M.P. (1997 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 49) which was followed by R.S. Garg, J., in Mahavir Saket v. Collector, Rewa (1998 (1) JLJ 113) for holding that mere non-compliance of first part of the rule in fixing a meeting beyond the prescribed days of the motion of no- confidence would not invalidate the whole proceedings. In case of Dhumadhandin (supra), the Sarpanch did not question the validity of the notice calling the meeting of no-confidence and in fact had taken chance by facing the motion. R.S. Garg, J., in Mahavir Saket (supra) placed reliance on the decision of C.K. Prasad, J., in Dhumadhandin (supra) to up-hold the passing of the no-confidence motion in the adjourned meeting as in the meeting called within the prescribed fifteen days the Presiding Officer was not available. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 permits reference of a dispute to the Collector by Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom a notice of no confidence motion had been passed. The proceedings of the no-confidence motion or other proceedings under the Act are also assailable in this Court as Constitutional Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As has been construed by us, even though second part of the rule requiring dispatch of notice of the meeting to the member is mandatory, yet in every case of challenge to the proceeding of no-confidence motion either before the Collector or this Court, it would still be open to the Collector or this Court to find out whether in a given case non-compliance of any part of the rule has in fact resulted in any failure of justice or has caused any serious prejudice to any of the parties. The general rule is that a mandatory provision of law requires strict compliance and the directory one only substantial. But even where the provision is mandatory, every non-compliance of the same need not necessarily result in nullification of the whole action. In a given situation even for non-fulfillment of mandatory requirement, the authority empowered to take a decision may refuse to nullify the action on the ground that no substantial prejudice had been caused to the party affected or to any other party which would have any other substantial interest in the proceeding. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has also a discretion not to interfere even though a mandatory requirement of law has not been strictly complied with as thereby no serious prejudice or failure of justice has been caused. This is how various Single Bench decisions in which even after finding some infraction of the second part of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1994, the resolution of no-confidence motion passed was not invalidated on the ground that no substantial prejudice thereby was caused to the affected parties. The intention of the legislature has to be gathered from the provisions contained in Section 21 and the Rule 3 (3) framed thereunder. The provisions do evince an intention that a meeting of the no-confidence motion be called within a reasonable period of not later than 15 days and every member has to be informed of the same seven days in advance. A notice of no-confidence motion is required to be moved by not less than 1/3rd of the total number of elected members as required by first Proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 and can be lawfully carried by a resolution passed by majority of not less than 3/4th of the Panchas present and voting and such majority has to be more than 2/3rd of the total number of Panchas constituting the Panchayat in accordance with subsection (1) of Section 21 of the Act. This being the substance of the provisions under the Act and the rules, a mere non-compliance of second part of Sub-rule (3) would not in every case invalidate the action unless the Collector while deciding the dispute under Sub-section (4) of Section 21 or this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution comes to the conclusion that such non- compliance has caused serious prejudice to the affected office bearer or has otherwise resulted in failure of justice."

10. The aforesaid view of the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court stands reiterated by this Court in the case of Sahasram Jangde and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, 2013 (4) CGLJ 526 wherein in paragarph 6 it has been held as under:

"6.When the law laid down by the full Bench of M.P. High Court and Division Bench of this Court is applied to the facts of the present case, it is to be seen that respondent No.6 Sarpanch has not raised any ground before the Additional Collector that because of the fact that meeting was convened on 8th day from the date of dispatch of notice and not on 9 th day, and thus clear 7 days notice was not issued, she has suffered grave prejudice in preparing herself for the meeting and there being no such finding by the Additional Collector in the impugned order, it will be taken as if no prejudice has been caused to respondent No.6 Sarpanch and thus in absence of prejudice or failure of justice, the Additional Collector has wrongly set aside the resolution of the Gram Panchayat declaring the no-confidence motion to be passed. It is also to be seen that once this Court in the earlier writ petition has held that the earlier resolution of the Gram Panchayat passing no-confidence motion in May, 2011 having been annulled on technical grounds, the bar against moving of another motion within one year would not apply, the SDO(Revenue) should not have sought opinion from the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat or from the Deputy Director Panchayat. However, by doing so, he wasted 7 days in the process. Therefore, once the no confidence motion has been passed the democratic norms and the statutory provisions cannot be left at the mercy of the prescribed authority whetn the law is well settled in the case of Bhulin Dewangan(Supra). Declaring the resolution of the Gram Panchayat which has passed the no confidence motion by majority as illegal would render the wish of the house nugatory and the Sarpanch who has lost the confidence of the house shall be allowed to function without any mandate in her favour. Such interpretation of Rule is neither permissible nor contemplated and this Court will not allow such effort of the prescribed authority to frustrate the will of the house by adopting dilatory tactics on the pretext of seeking legal opinion or opinion from the higher authorities. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has relied on judgment of M.P. High Court in the matter of Jugraj Singh Markam Vs. Dhannalal Maravi and others : 2003 (4) MPLJ 378. However, in view of the discussion made above, and particularly the law laid down by the Full Bench of the M.P. High Court and the peculiar facts of this case, the said judgment relied upon by respondent No.6 has no application and is distinguishable. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dt. 28.06.2012 passed by the Additional Collector is set aside. Consequently respondent No.6 no longer remains as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dahida, Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh."

11. It would be relevant also to take notice of the judgment passed by this Court in WPC 591/2018 decided on 27.11.2018 wherein in paragraph 12 to 14 it has been held as under:

"12.In the case at hand, the resolution clearly records that the meeting began at the scheduled time and place. Moreover, the Sarpanch has not stated before the Court as to what prejudice has been caused to him if any particular provision has not been followed.

13. In a matter where the outgoing Sarpanch has lost the confidence of the house, it is necessary for him to prove the prejudice caused to him, which has resulted in vitiation of the entire process as has been recorded by the Full Bench of the HighCourt of Madhya Pradesh in Smt. Bhulin Dewangan v State Of M.P. And Ors.4 The no confidence motion having been passed by the required majority, the Commissioner has wrongly interfered with the order passed by the Collector.

14. In the result, the impugned order dated 5-2-2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, deserves to be and is hereby set aside. Consequently, the motion of no confidence carried against the Sarpanch on 9-3-2017 is sustained and the respondent No.7/Smt. Karuna Sarve, Sarpanch, shall cease to hold the office forthwith."

12. In view of the aforesaid authoritative decision firstly by the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court which is further been reiterated by this Court in a couple of decisions referred above, this Court finds that facts of the instant case are also if not identical almost similar. Here also the Notice was issued on 14.08.2018 it was duly served upon the respondent No.7 on 18.08.2018 and meeting was held on 21.08.2018. All the panches of the Gram Panchayat were available on the date when the meeting was convened i.e. on 21.08.2018. Respondent No.7 had also fully participated in the proceedings and had also casted his vote on the motion. The result shows that the respondent No.7 lost miserably in

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

asmuch as the 10 out of the 12 panches voted in favour of the motion and only one vote of the respondent No.7 was against the motion. Another vote was declared invalid. Thus, the motion was passed with a ratio of 10:1. The fact that out of 12, 10 Panches voted against respondent No.7 shows that he has admittedly lost confidence of the Panches and in the light of the judgment referred in the preceding paragraphs, it would not be in the larger public interest permitting the respondent No.7 to continue on the post of Sarpanch. 13. So far as the judgment referred to by the counsel for the respondent No.7 in the case of Muku Bai(supra) is concerned if we read the Full Bench decision subsequently decided, the decision of Muku Bai also has been referred by the Full Bench and they have approved of the law as it stands but have further gone to decide the issue on the ground of the person loosing public confidence and also that it would not be in the public interest to permit somebody against whom there is no confidence of the other panches. The Full Bench judgment also went to hold that it was necessary to show the prejudice caused on account of the alleged non compliance of the statutory requirement i.e. the requirement as is envisaged under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 (Supra). 14. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is compelled to allow the present writ petition. Accordingly, the impugned orders Annexure P-1 dated 26.09.2019 & Annexure P-6 dated 27.07.2019 stands set aside/quashed with consequences to follow. 15. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

13-10-2020 M/S. Device Driven (India) Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director, Indu Lakshmy Lal & Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
29-09-2020 Laddu Lal Mahto Versus Managing Director, Tata Motors Limited, Bihar & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others Versus Goverdhan Lal Soni & Another Supreme Court of India
08-09-2020 Murari Lal Versus State of U.P & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-08-2020 Chhotey Lal Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-08-2020 Lal Chand Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
11-08-2020 Shankar Lal Yadav & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
06-08-2020 Ram Lal Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
24-07-2020 E.V. Gopi & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
17-07-2020 Pyare Lal Versus State of Haryana Supreme Court of India
30-06-2020 Sindhu. S. Lal Versus Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor & Others High Court of Kerala
29-06-2020 Mohan Lal Jain Versus Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Another High Court of Delhi
26-06-2020 Amrut Lal @ Amrit Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
23-06-2020 Munna Lal Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical & Health Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Jivan Lal Verma Versus Kishan Agrotek National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Moti Lal @ Moti Lal Patwa Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance through the Director, Enforcement Directorate, Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-06-2020 Latelraj Suryawanshi (Latelram Suryawanshi wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment) Versus Hori Lal Tamboli & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-05-2020 Aravapalli Krishna Murthy Versus Syed Lal Saheb Died & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 Diwari Lal & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
11-05-2020 Shiv Lal (Since Deceased) Versus Mohan Lal High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-05-2020 Mohan Lal Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
30-04-2020 Jagdish Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
29-04-2020 Gopi Chand Versus Geeta Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
20-04-2020 Babu Lal Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
24-03-2020 Babu Lal & Others Versus Para Devi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal Supreme Court of India
11-03-2020 Ram Dulari & Another Versus Ram Lal & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
29-02-2020 Lal Chand Versus State of H.P. High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-02-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-02-2020 Aman Khattar Versus Jawahar Lal High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 M/s. Kiran Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Manohar Lal Ahuja, Uttar Pradesh Versus Yashpal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-02-2020 M/s. Behari Lal & sons V/S The State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
18-02-2020 M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions (P) Ltd. Dwaraka, New Delhi, Registered Office Bhatinda, Punjab, Represented by Its Director, Vikas Mehta Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Dr. Hira Lal Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
17-02-2020 Kiransinh Ratansinh Alias Gopi Jadav Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
14-02-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Manager, Delhi Versus Chaman Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Jhanak Lal V/S State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Chattisgarh
13-02-2020 Vikas Panchayat, Gram Boheda Through Sarpanch, Rajasthan Versus Badri Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Ashok Alias Gore Lal Veruss State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Kanhaiya Lal Versus Lala Ram & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Heera Lal Versus State High Court of Rajasthan
05-02-2020 Chhotey Lal @ Chottu Versus State High Court of Delhi
31-01-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
29-01-2020 Karnveer Singh Versus Panji Lal Damor High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-01-2020 Mohit Lal Ghosh Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-01-2020 M/s. Urban Umbrella Development And Management Company Through Its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Punjab V/S Pawan Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-01-2020 Priyantha Lal Ramanayake Versus The Hon. Attorney General Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
24-01-2020 Chuni Lal Versus Munshi Ram & Another Supreme Court of India
24-01-2020 Lal Mohammed Versus State (Nct of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India
22-01-2020 Seema Lal & Others V/S State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
21-01-2020 Kishan Lal Chadha @ Krishan Lal Chadha (Deceased) Versus Anup Chadha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Orissa Versus Achhey Lal High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-01-2020 Rattan Lal Bharadwaj Versus Magma Financial Corporation Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-01-2020 Shyam Lal Jayaswal Versus Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
06-01-2020 Udhav Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station Sarangarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-01-2020 State Bank of India V/S Nand Lal Sokhal and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Jaipur
02-01-2020 Manori Lal & Another Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-12-2019 Manik Lal Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-12-2019 State of Punjab Versus Kashmiri Lal @ Sheera High Court of Punjab and Haryana
29-11-2019 Chumman Lal Sahu & Another Versus Gopal Ji Singh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-11-2019 Sham Lal Chabba Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-11-2019 Chaitu Lal Versus State of Uttarakhand Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) Versus Abhilash Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 The Management of M/s. Birla Te Versus Chunni Lal High Court of Delhi
13-11-2019 Montu Lal Das Gupta V/S The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, to the Government of India, Ministry of Health, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
11-11-2019 The State of Maharashtra Versus Mohammed Ibrahim Lal Mohammed & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-11-2019 Avijit Mitra & Others Versus Shankar Lal Roy High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-11-2019 Parvati Mohta Through Legal Representatives Versus Mohan Lal Sukhadia University High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
05-11-2019 Heera Lal Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
04-11-2019 Bank of Baroda Versus Kameshwar Lal & Another Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad
04-11-2019 Shyambai Versus Shankar Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-10-2019 Dr. Vipin C. Gopi Versus Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur, Represented by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
25-10-2019 Joint Labour Commissioner & Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-10-2019 Indore Development Authority Versus Manohar Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
22-10-2019 Pratap Lal Teli Versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Public Prosecutor, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-10-2019 Hori Lal & Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-10-2019 Jawahar Lal Jaiswal Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
10-10-2019 G.S. Manju Versus K.N. Gopi @ Gopinathan Pillai, Kollam, Represented by Its Power of Attorney holder Haridasan & Others High Court of Kerala
09-10-2019 Roshan Lal Versus Delhi Jal Board High Court of Delhi
04-10-2019 Ravi Setia Versus Madan Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
26-09-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption U.P State Cons. & Infra. Versus M/s. Reham Foundation Kandhari Lane Lal Bagh, Lucknow High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
25-09-2019 Rakesh Goel Versus Hira Lal ( Now Deceased) & Another High Court of Delhi
24-09-2019 Sri Ananta Prasad Sahu @ Sri Ananta Lal Sahu Versus Sri Gopal Sahu @ Sri Golao Lal Sahu High Court of Gauhati
18-09-2019 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rameshwar Lal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-09-2019 Anshuman Dubey & Another Versus Jawahar Lal Nehru University & Others High Court of Delhi
16-09-2019 Vinod Madan Lal Nawandhar Versus Vidisha Garg & Others High Court of Delhi
11-09-2019 Ami Lal Versus Commandant, 52nd Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Manipur & Another High Court of Orissa
09-09-2019 Malkit Kaur Versus Joginder Lal Khurana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-09-2019 Chaman Lal Mittal Versus Kamini Sharma High Court of Delhi
05-09-2019 Laxman Lal Latta Versus Kamlesh Parmar & Others High Court of Rajasthan
03-09-2019 Pritam Lal Makhija Versus Akhil Bhartiya Aggarwal Sammelan Thr its Joint Organised Secretary Virender Gupta High Court of Delhi
02-09-2019 Shiv Lal Versus Om Parkash Kashyap High Court of Delhi
02-09-2019 Bharat Lal Meena Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
22-08-2019 Dilip Kumar Mahesh Versus Sundar Lal Maurya High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
21-08-2019 Sunder Lal Versus State High Court of Delhi
20-08-2019 Mewa Lal Choudhary Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Patna