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



Harish Chandra Pandey v/s Kamala Devi


Company & Directors' Information:- DEVI CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U16000AP2011PTC076133

Company & Directors' Information:- HARISH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29299MH1959PTC011457

Company & Directors' Information:- HARISH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U45201RJ1995PTC010374

Company & Directors' Information:- H CHANDRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990MH1952PTC008894

    Second Appeal No. 291 of 1983

    Decided On, 17 February 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD PRASAD

    For the Appellant: Sankatha Rai, J.S. Srivastava, P.N. Tripathi, Vinod Kumar Rai, Advocates. For the Respondent: M.D. Chaudhary, J.K. Srivastava, N. Lal, Murlidhar Chaubey, Riduvant Pratap Singh, Yogesh Tiwari, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Vinod Prasad, J.

1. This second appeal by the defendant appellants has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.1.1983 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mirzapur in Civil Appeal No. 182 of 1979, Smt. Kamla Devi and others v. Harish Chandra Pandey and others arising out of judgment and decree dated 1.6.1979 passed by IIIrd Munsif, Mirzapur in OS No. 517 of 1973. Necessary facts relevant for the present, stated in short, revealed that a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents Smt. Rajwanti, Gorakh Nath Pandey and Ravindra Nath Pandey against appellants/defendants Harish Chandra Pandey, Sheetla Prasad Pandey, in respect of suit properties shown in the plaint map with the letters A, B, C, D and Ya, Ra, La Va, situated in town Kachhawa, district Mirzapur. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff No. 1 Rajwanti died and she was substituted alongwith plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 Gorakh Nath Pandey and Ravindra Nath Pandey, also by present plaintiffs respondents Kamla Devi and Bimla Devi as plaintiffs 1/1 and 1/2 as her heirs and legal representatives. Subsequently, Harihar Prasad and Ram Ji Pandey were also impleaded and joined as defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit. It is mentioned here that initially the suit which was only for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, after impleadment of the parties was converted in a suit for declaration and possession as well as these reliefs were also added and prayed for subsequently.

2. Learned Munsif vide judgment and decree dated 1.6.1979 dismissed plaintiff's suit with cost. The aforesaid judgment and decree was challenged in Civil Appeal No. 182 of 1979 and the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mirzapur vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.1.1983 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif and decreed plaintiff's suit with cost throughout. Lower Appellate Court declared the plaintiffs/respondents as the owners of the suit property and also accepted their claim of possession and, therefore, restrained/injuncted defendants/appellants from interfering with plaintiffs possession in any manner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court in the aforementioned civil appeal, that defendants appellants have come up in this second appeal.

3. This Second appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law mentioned in paragraph 18(i) and (iv), which are quoted herein below:

18. Because the following substantial questions of law arises for determination in the Second Appeal:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by time?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

(iv) Whether the sale-deed for payment of adequate consideration could be termed sham transaction.

4. During pendency of the final hearing, an abatement application No. 39455 of 2010 alongwith affidavit was filed by Gorakh Nath Pandey plaintiff/respondent No. 4 on 8.2.2010, after serving it's copy on the Counsel for the appellant 5.2.2010, mentioning in paragraph 2 of the affidavit that appellant No. 1 Harish Chandra Pandey expired on 25.12.1996, appellant No. 2/1 Phulwanti Devi wife of Harihar Prasad Pandey died in March, 1997 and appellant 2/2 Jagdish Pandey son of Harihar Pandey died in December, 2002 but no substitution applications in respect these demised appellants have been filed till the said date 8.2.2010. The aforesaid abatement application was directed to be listed with previous papers on 10.2.2010.

5. In due course, the substitution application and the appeal again came up before the Bench on 9.11.2012. On the aforesaid dale, it was observed by this Court that no counter-affidavit to the abatement application has been filed till that date. It was further mentioned that Sri V.K. Rai prayed for indulgence in order to take appropriate steps for substitution. The appeal was directed to came up after three weeks alongwith the name of Sri Riduvand Pratap Singh. It transpires from the perusal of the record that a substitution application dated 27.11.2012 alongwith section 5 Limitation Act Application was filed for bringing on record the heirs of appellants 2/1 Smt. Phulwanti Devi and appellant 2/2 Jagdish Prasad Pandey.

6. The appeal was listed on 7.2.2014 when Counsel for the defendants plaintiffs submitted that the delay in filing of the substitution application should not be condoned and in any view of the matter since no substitution application for bringing on record the heirs of appellant No. 1 Harish Chandra Pandey has been filed and since the relief sought in the suit is joint and inseparable, therefore, the second appeal should be abated in full and be dismissed as such. Referring to paragraph 2 of the affidavit appended alongwith the abatement application, it was submitted that appellant No. 1 expired on 25.12.1996 and now seventeen years have gone by and for this enormous period, no substitution application was filed. In respect of filed substitution application it was urged that since appellant No. 2/1 Phulwanti Devi W/o died in March, 1997 and appellant 2/2 Jagdish Pandey expired in December, 2002, and no proper and convincing reason for not filing the substitution application for bringing their heirs on record within time has been mentioned in the delay condonation application appended alongwith substitution application, therefore section 5 Limitation Act Application be dismissed alongwith substitution application and appeal be abated and delay should not be condoned. When inquired by the Court also learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants was unable to state any reason whatsoever for not filing of substitution application for bringing the heirs of appellant No. 1 Harish Chandra Pandey on record and for not filing substitution application earlier for other two deceased within time allowed by law.

7. It is further discernible from the record that section 5 Limitation Act Application being Miscellaneous Application No. 351290 of 2012, which has been filed alongwith substitution application No. 351292 of 2012, is not supported with any affidavit and most weirdly, the only reason mentioned for the delay occasioned in filing of the substitution application is "that there is no laches or deliberately negligence on the part of the applicants. The delay is bona fide and is liable to be condoned giving benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act." The aforesaid pleading, is woefully deficient and does not at all mention any reason explaining the delay of ten/fifteen years in filing the substitution application. The appellants are utterly careless and non-serious in pursuing their second appeal. In matters of consideration of delay condonation application, it too well settled trite law that each day delay has to be explained satisfactorily mentioning convincing and compelling reasons for condoning the delay. Contrary to above expounded law, appellants/defendants have not furnished any explanation at all to condone the delay and the furnished explanation is wholly insufficient. On such an explanation, as has been furnished by the appellants, the delay of ten/fifteen years in filing of the substitution application cannot be condoned. It is recapitulated that according to the plaintiffs/respondents case, appellant No. 1 expired on 25.12.1996 while appellant No. 2/1 expired in March, 1997 and appellant No. 2/2 Jagdish Pandey expired in 2002.

8. From the facts stated above, there is no reason to condone the delay in filing of the substitution application and, therefore, the delay condone application u/s 5 Limitation Act filed by the appellants as well as substitution application referred to above for bringing heirs of appellants/defendants No. 2/1 Phulwanti Devi and appellant 2/2 Jagdish Pandey both are dismissed.

9. There is no substitution application for bringing the heirs of appellant No. 1 on the record, who expired on 25.12.1996 and since the record indicates that the cause of action was joint and inseparable, therefore, the entire appeal has to abate against all the appellants/defendants.

10. On the above conclusion, a support can be drawn from the Apex Court decision in Babu Sukhram Singh Vs. Ram Dular Singh and Others, and Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and Others, . In the former decision Babu Sukhram Singh (supra), it has been held as under:

3. Now the question is whether the appeal has abated or not. As seen earlier in the plaint a joint claim is made against all the defendants. The first Appellate Court, as mentioned earlier, decreed the suit in part against all the defendants. The High Court has dismissed the suit against all the defendants. In this Court relief asked for was against all the defendants. No separate claim was made against any of the defendants. Under these circumstances, quite clearly the appeal has abated as a whole under Order XXII, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

11. In the later decision Balwant Singh (supra), it has been held as under:

The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right, as accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly. The application filed by the applicants lack in details.

In the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., it has been laid down by the Apex Court as under:

7. In construing section 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to co

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ndone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice. As has been observed by the Madras High Court in 4 I.D (N.S.) 899 . 12. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration;... For the above reasons, there is no other alternative but to abate the appeal. Resultantly, this second appeal abates against all the appellants and is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-07-2020 Satish Chandra & Another Verma Versus Prabhakar Singh Chandel, The Chairman, State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh, H.O. High Court Premises, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
30-06-2020 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Jaipur & Others Versus Manju Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 For the Respondents: Vibhav Prakash Tripathi, Advocate. For the Respondents: G.A., Subhash Chandra Yadav, Advocate. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-06-2020 Bhagwati Devi Versus Suritram (Dead) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-06-2020 Chandra Marbles Mattannur, Rep By Its Properties C.M. Jeeja Versus C.H. Ramachandran & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Dr. Manoj Kr. Bhagat Versus Masomat Kanchan Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Bhabesh Chandra Biswas @ Bhupesh Biswas Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
17-06-2020 Sri Dhiren Chandra Borah Versus Smti Pallavi Kalita High Court of Gauhati
17-06-2020 Most. Dhanwanti Devi & Others Versus Sanjharo Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-06-2020 Samri Devi Shaw Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus Aasha Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Munni Devi & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-06-2020 Sheelender Kumar Gupta & Another Versus Mahaviri Devi (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. High Court of Delhi
08-06-2020 Geeta Devi Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
02-06-2020 Renu Devi & Another Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
01-06-2020 Nagen Chandra Das & Others Versus The State of Assam, Rep. by the Comm. And Secy., Deptt. of Urban Development Deptt., Dispur & Others High Court of Gauhati
28-05-2020 Manju Devi Versus Board of Revenue Allahabad & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-05-2020 Most. Ahilya Devi @ Ahilya Devi Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
21-05-2020 Savitri Devi & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
20-05-2020 Aasha Devi Versus Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation Ltd through its Managing Director, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
08-05-2020 Union of India Versus Narayan Chandra Jena & Another Supreme Court of India
04-05-2020 Priyambada Devi Birla & Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-05-2020 Inder Singh Versus Savitri Devi High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Suresh Chandra Mishra Versus State of Odisha & Another High Court of Orissa
29-04-2020 Gopi Chand Versus Geeta Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Ratan Chandra Gogoi & Others Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
20-04-2020 Umesh Chandra Saxena Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-04-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Mohani Devi & Another Supreme Court of India
23-03-2020 Damyanti Devi Versus Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-03-2020 Suresh Chandra Das Versus The State of Tripura to be represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Secretariat Complex, West Tripura & Another High Court of Tripura
19-03-2020 Satya Devi Versus State of HP & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
19-03-2020 Uma Devi Versus The State Govt of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh Versus Sharad Yadav Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Dr. Nirmala Devi, Obstetrician & Gynecologist, Assitant Professor Versus Chandrakanta National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Surendra Kumar Versus Phulwanti Devi High Court of Rajasthan
16-03-2020 Khushboo Devi Versus Indranil Ray Chowdhury & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-03-2020 Ramesh Chandra Singh & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-03-2020 Harish Vasudevan Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
10-03-2020 G. Uma Devi & Another Versus M. Krishnamurthy Reddiar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2020 Chandra Versus State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police Q Branch CID High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Versus Jayanti Devi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-03-2020 M/s Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. Versus S. Ambika Devi & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Sakuntala Devi Versus Dr. Md. Mumtaz Alam & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 M. Vanaja Versus M. Sarla Devi (Dead) Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Poonam Devi & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 B. Chandra Shekar Versus Kurapati Narenaer High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-03-2020 Tulsa Devi Nirola & Others Versus Radha Nirola & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Kailash Chandra Agarwal & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
04-03-2020 Phool Chandra Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
04-03-2020 Ambika Singh (since deceased) represented by legal representatives & Others Versus Mosomat Sohagi Devi (since deceased) represented by her legal heirs & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-03-2020 Saraswati Devi Versus Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad & Others High Court of Jharkhand
28-02-2020 Ashok Chandra Tamta Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
28-02-2020 Sandhya Devi @ Sandhya Goyal Versus State High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Devi & Another Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Tvl. Trust Metal, Rep. by its Proprietrix Bhagwanti Devi Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT), Moore Market (South) Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Karmi Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 Devi Versus Narayanan @ Alagappan & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-02-2020 Harish Jain Versus Haveli Restaurant & Resorts Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Jalandhar (Punjab) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
25-02-2020 Shyam Sundar Dhal Versus Sharada Devi Bubna & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-02-2020 Chandra Bhushan Shukla Versus Surmila (Dead) & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-02-2020 Seema & Another Versus Harish & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
21-02-2020 Chandra & Others Versus Sri Kakumani Adikesavalu Chetty Charities, Rep. by its Managing Trustees, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 Harish Chandra Singh Versus State of M.P. Through State House Officer, Police Station Ratlam & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
19-02-2020 State Of Uttarakhand Versus Ramesh Chandra Joshi & Another High Court of Uttarakhand
18-02-2020 ITC Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Constituted Attorney, V.M. Rajasekharan Versus Shree Devi Match Industries, Gudiyattam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Sujatha Devi Akondi & Others Versus M/s. Safeway InfraRep By Its Managing Partner Ivsn Raju, Hyderabad & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-02-2020 Golkonda Uma Devi Versus Enti Manjula & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
13-02-2020 Mala Devi Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Medical & Health Lko. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-02-2020 Chandra Shekhar Azad Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-02-2020 Ratna Devi Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-02-2020 Rakesh Chandra Savita Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
06-02-2020 Gopal Chandra Mishra & Others Versus The Chairman, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Dumka & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-02-2020 Vir Singh Versus Chandra Lata & Another High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 Manju Devi Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
05-02-2020 Govinda Chandra Tiria Versus Sibaji Charan Panda & Others Supreme Court of India
05-02-2020 Dipak Chandra Dhar, Senior Trackman, Under Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway, Silchar Versus Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-02-2020 Chandra Shekhar Dubey & Others Versus Narendra & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
04-02-2020 Dr. Satish Chandra Versus M/s. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
04-02-2020 S. Pugazhendi, President, Subash Chandra Bose Podhu Nala Sangam, Nagapattinam Versus Dy.Superintending Engineer/Public Information Officer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Highways Department, Madurai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 School Management, St. Xavier Public School Korba Versus Raghuvanshi Chandra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-02-2020 Kiran Devi Agrawal & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-02-2020 Shubhash Kumar Sharma Versus Harish Chander Rawal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-02-2020 A. Sakunthala Devi Versus The Registrar General, High Court, Madras & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 K. Chandra Sekhar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of for the State of Telangana
01-02-2020 Bipul Chandra Das & Another Versus Rakhi Acharjee & Others High Court of Tripura
31-01-2020 Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others Versus Panna Mahesh Chandra Dave & Another Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Vidya Devi & Another Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
30-01-2020 Urmila Devi & Others Versus Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
28-01-2020 Biresh Chandra Giri Versus State of Orissa High Court of Orissa
28-01-2020 Shakuntala Devi Jan Kalyan Samiti Through Secy. & Others Versus State of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-01-2020 Kirpal Singh & Others Versus Kamla Devi & Others Supreme Court of India
28-01-2020 Kashmira Devi Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others Supreme Court of India
24-01-2020 Manokamini Devi Versus Ashok Kumar High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-01-2020 Arunabh Sinha Versus Panuganti Vijay Chandra Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
23-01-2020 Justice Valluri Seethamahalakshmi Versus Sara Chandra Environ Solutions Pvt Ltd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
23-01-2020 C. Sarojini Devi Versus The Director of Local Fund Audits, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 Ganapathy Versus Chandra High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 K.S. Rema Devi, Accountant, Azhoor-Muttappalam Service Co-Operative Bank, Thiruvananthapuram Versus The Kerala Co-Operative Service Examination Board, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvannathapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
21-01-2020 Somireddy Chandra Mohan Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box