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



J.S. Sharma & Sons v/s Shiv Devi Meena


Company & Directors' Information:- G. K. & SONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27101WB1973PTC028769

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

Company & Directors' Information:- C L C AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1997PTC089214

Company & Directors' Information:- B. L. & SONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC073710

Company & Directors' Information:- B G SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101UP1994PTC016493

Company & Directors' Information:- J.S. INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32109WB2003PTC097053

Company & Directors' Information:- J S AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1996PTC075597

Company & Directors' Information:- B D SONS PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U67120PB1980PTC004326

Company & Directors' Information:- K C J SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22122DL2001PTC110679

Company & Directors' Information:- M L D & SONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1984PTC037130

Company & Directors' Information:- K N M AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92199TZ1975PTC000743

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- B R AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26943RJ1983PTC002724

Company & Directors' Information:- M. G. SONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101GJ2016PLC093903

Company & Directors' Information:- M. G. SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101GJ2016PTC093903

Company & Directors' Information:- G D AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120UP2000PTC025457

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

Company & Directors' Information:- K L SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120UP1993PTC015414

Company & Directors' Information:- L K SONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U21012PB1980PTC004226

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

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- B SONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22110DL1997PTC090730

Company & Directors' Information:- R C AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC061275

Company & Directors' Information:- R D & SONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15559WB1958PTC023742

Company & Directors' Information:- F SONS PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900WB1982PTC035114

Company & Directors' Information:- M P SONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70109WB1958PTC023796

Company & Directors' Information:- B L SHARMA & SONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29193WB1987PTC042229

Company & Directors' Information:- T J R SONS LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74999GJ1997PLC031518

Company & Directors' Information:- N. D. AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01100CT2020PTC009997

Company & Directors' Information:- S A K SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52110TZ1985PTC001637

Company & Directors' Information:- G C AND SONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U72100ML1987PTC002697

Company & Directors' Information:- SHIV AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15499PB1988PTC008267

Company & Directors' Information:- S C SONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1924PTC004937

Company & Directors' Information:- J V & SONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51420WB1988PTC044171

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- P. V. AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74993GJ2018PTC101181

Company & Directors' Information:- K V M AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U19113TZ1955PTC000074

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

Company & Directors' Information:- R K SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1951PTC001975

    CM(M) 344 of 2019 & CM APPL. 9045 of 2019

    Decided On, 07 January 2020

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

    For the Petitioner: Rajiv Ghawana, Neelaksh Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Rakesh Kakar, Advocate.



Judgment Text


Oral:

The present petition challenges two orders. The first is an order dated 27th September, 2018 by which an application for impleadment of the legal heirs under Order 22 Rule 9, CPC was allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the Respondent herein-landlady (hereinafter “landlady”). The said order dated 27th September, 2018 passed by the ARC was challenged before the ld. ADJ, which appeal was dismissed on 1st December, 2018. Both these orders have been impugned before this Court.

2. The submission of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners-tenants (hereinafter “tenants”) is that whenever legal heirs are to be impleaded, if the same is not done within the time prescribed in law, the suit/petition stands abated and a vested right accrues in favour of the person against whom the petition was originally filed. Thus, unless there is sufficient cause, which is shown by the person seeking condonation of delay in impleadment of the legal heirs, the same cannot be allowed in a casual manner. It is further submitted that the reasons which have been given in the application under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC are also false, inasmuch as the landlady is quite hale and hearty. The averment in the application, that she is bed ridden, is also completely incorrect. It is also submitted that illness of the Counsel's brother is also a false stand as the said Counsel was appearing in other matters before various Courts including the fact that the brother himself, who is a lawyer, was also appearing in various Courts. The tenants also rely upon the photographs of the landlady, to argue that she is definitely not bed- ridden and even the illness of the brother of the Counsel is also not a sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

3. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the tenants that the delay in seeking impleadment of legal heirs is more than 400 days. The death itself took place on 12th September, 2014 and thereafter, the details of the legal heirs was given to the landlady on 31st January, 2015. The Trial Court recorded on 1st July, 2015 that no impleadment application was moved and the first application was filed on 4th February, 2016 when a new lawyer was engaged. The landlady also does not have any grievance that the details of the legal heirs were not given. The first application was dismissed vide the order dated 8th February, 2017 on the ground that the application was shorn of detail and no sufficient reason has been given. Thereafter, a new Counsel was engaged by the landlady, who moved the present application seeking condonation of delay and impleadment of the legal heirs, which was now, allowed by the Trial Court vide the order dated 27th September, 2018. He further relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh and Ors., V (2010) SLT 790=III (2010) CLT 201 (SC)=(2010) 8 SCC 685, and Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High and Intermediate Education and Ors., V (2003) SLT 394=(2003) 8 SCC 311, to argue that if a person makes a false statement in an application for condonation of delay, the same should not be considered and the application ought not to be allowed. He further submits that a liberal approach cannot be taken in such cases where the party are guilty of placing the incorrect facts before the Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-landlady, on the other hand, submits that the landlady is a widow and she was never provided with a list of the legal heirs of the Mr. J.S. Sharma. This is clear from a reading of the impugned order wherein no details were given as to when the names were furnished. Further, learned Counsel submits that Mr. J.S. Sharma-tenant passed away in 2014 and immediately an application was filed under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 8th February, 2017 and for the first time, the Trial Court recorded in the said order that the petition stands abated. Learned Counsel seeks to draw a distinction between an application under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC and an application under Order 22 Rule 9, CPC to state that these two applications are different and distinct. After an order of abatement is passed, if the party shows a sufficient cause, the abatement can be set aside. He submits that even the delay in filing such an application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He thus submits that after the order dated 8th February, 2017 was passed for the first time, abating the suit, the application under Order 22 Rule 9, CPC was filed within a period of 30 days and therefore the application is not barred by limitation.

5. On facts, five grounds are pleaded to argue that this is a fit case for condonation of delay, if any, in filing of an application:

(i) that the Respondent is a widow and an illiterate lady;

(ii) that she has suffered from various medical complications;

(iii) that the list of legal heirs of JS Sharma was never provided by the Petitioners;

(iv) that the costs which were imposed, were finally tendered by the Respondent-landlady;

(v) that the photographs being placed by the tenants do not controvert the medical records of the landlady.

6. He further submits that the equities are in favour of the landlady inasmuch as the shop in question was one integral shop near Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi where the tenants are running a Jewellery Shop. The father had paid the last rent in June 2013 and it was only after notice was issued by the landlady for payment of rent that the tenants moved a rent petition and have started depositing the rent before the Trial Court. He further submits that since 2013, the landlady has not been receiving any rent whatsoever and the tenants are enjoying the shop and conducting a flourishing business. The learned Counsel relies upon the following two judgments:

* Arun Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. v. Sudarshan Wadia & Ors., [CS(OS) 908/2008, decided on 12th July, 2011]

* Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini, V (2003) SLT 546=IV (2003) CLT 89 (SC)=2003 (10) SCC 691.

7. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record as also the two orders i.e. the order passed by the learned ARC and the learned ADJ i.e. the RCT, one thing is clear i.e. that the landlady is a widow and is illiterate. She initially moved an application under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 8th February, 2017. The perusal of the order sheets shows that the demise of Mr. J.S. Sharma, was recorded on 29th November, 2014 as under:

“List of documents filed on behalf of respondent which contains 2 DVD and his original photographs running into 12 pages alongwith rejoinder Be taken on record. Copy supplied.

Learned Counsel for respondent submits that Sh. J.S. Sharma has expired on 31.9.2014 and he is directed to supply details of LRs to petitioner for their impleadment on 31.1.2015.”

8. Thereafter, on 31st January, 2015 and on 18th April, 2015, the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 1st July, 2015, the learned ARC records that the application for impleadment of legal heirs has not been filed. There is no evidence on record to show as to when the details of LRs was furnished. The only evidence relied upon is a screen shot showing the creation of a Word Document on the computer of the Counsel which shows the creation date as 30th January 2015.

9. Thereafter on 19th February, 2016, the application under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC was filed and the same was decided by the learned ARC on 8th February, 2017. In the said order the learned ARC notes that the remedy available to the Respondent was to move an application under Order 22 Rule 9(2), CPC. The observation of the ld. ARC is as under:

“...

7. The petitioner was aware the death of the respondent since 29.11.2014 but failed to moved any application within the period of 90 days for the impleadment of the legal heirs as provided under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963. If the application for impleadment of legal heirs does not come within the period of 90 days, the proceedings are abated. Under Order 22 Rule 4(3), where within the time limited by law no application is made for the impleadment of legal heirs, the petition shall abate against the deceased respondent. In the eventuality of abatement of the case the only remedy available to the petitioner is to get the abatement set aside under Order 22 Rule 9(2), CPC by moving an application proving that the was prevented by any sufficient cause from continuing the suit.

8. Undisputedly, the petition has abated after the lapse of the period of 90 days as the petitioner has not moved any application for impleadment of legal heirs and there is no application for setting aside the abatement. Therefore, for want of an application for setting aside the abatement, the petition stands abated.

9. The application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is for condoning the delay in moving the application for impleadment of legal heirs also does not hold ground because not only is there is a specific provision for setting aside abatement which has not been taken recourse to but also the reasons mentioned in the application are also not supported by any medical documents to prove that the petition was actually medical incapacitated from moving around and pursuing this case.

10. Both the application are under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC and an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act therefore on the basis of aforesaid discussion are dismissed. Eviction petition stands abated.”

10. A perusal of the above shows that the primary reason for dismissal of the application is that it has been moved under the wrong provision i.e. Order 22 Rule 4(3), CPC instead of Order 22 Rule 9(2), CPC as the suit already stood abated. In the operative portion of the above order, the learned ARC records that the eviction petition stands abated. Prior to this date, there is no order recording that the eviction petition is abated. However, there is no doubt that under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC, the abatement does not require a specific order to be passed by the Court.

11. In any event, the application under Order 22 Rule 9, CPC is moved on 28th February, 2017 and has been decided by the impugned order dated 27th September, 2018. In the order passed by the learned ARC, the learned ARC has considered the facts in detail including the stipulations of Order 22 Rule 9, CPC. The learned ARC has come to the conclusion that the said two provisions operate in different fields and the medical problems which the landlady faced was sufficient to show that the landlady did have old-age related issues. The learned ARC further records that there is no specific date which can be shown by the tenants as to when the details of the legal heirs were communicated to the landlady. Insofar as the negligence of the Counsel is concerned, the learned ARC holds that, presuming the Counsels were negligent, the party cannot be made to suffer. This order dated 27th September, 2018 has been upheld by the learned RCT by holding that the application is well within time and the grounds are made out for condoning the delay. The learned RCT has also considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the RCT read as under:

“The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not help the appellant, as no contrary view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Others, (2010) 8 SCC 685.

No doubt the abatement was a favourable order as far as the appellants are concerned, but no vested right has come to them in as much as this petition was an eviction petition sought by a widow on grounds of bona fide need in which the appellants have sought leave to defend, which matter is to be considered on merits.

However, in view of the fact that the petition is founded on the medical status of the respondent, which was questioned by the appellants in their leave to defend application, the observations made by the learned ARC while allowing the application and setting aside the abatement in so far as it comments on the medical status of the respondent will have no bearing on the disposal of the application for leave to defend and the eviction petition and no observations made in the impugned order will guide the learned ARC while disposing of the leave to defend application as well as the main petition. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed with these directions.”

12. The learned Counsel for the tenants has vehemently urged that as per the judgment of Balwant Singh (supra) of the Supreme Court, a vested right has accrued in favour of the tenants and therefore, the same cannot be taken away without sufficient cause. The observations of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (supra) shows that, while the Supreme Court confirms that the term 'sufficient cause' has to receive a liberal construction, the reasonableness of the said liberal construction has to be understood in the general connotation. The explanation has to be plausible and has to persuade the Court. The observations of the Supreme Court are set out hereinbelow:

“25. We may state that even if the term "sufficient cause" has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of "reasonableness" as it is understood in its general connotation.

26. 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 has 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.

27. The application filed by the applicants lacks in details. Even the averments made are not correct and ex facie lack bona fide. The explanation has to be reasonable or plausible, so as to persuade the Court to believe that the explanation rendered is not only true, but is worthy of exercising judicial discretion in favour of the applicant. If it does not specify any of the enunciated ingredients of judicial pronouncements, then the application should be dismissed. On the other hand, if the application is bona fide and based upon true and plausible explanations, as well as reflects normal behaviour of a common prudent person on the part of the applicant, the Court would normally tilt the judicial discretion in favour of such an applicant. Liberal construction cannot be equated with doing injustice to the other party.

...

32. It must be kept in mind that whenever a law is enacted by the legislature, it is intended to be enforced in its proper perspective. It is an equally settled principle of law that the provisions of a statute, including every word, have to be given full effect, keeping the legislative intent in mind, in order to ensure that the projected object is achieved. In other words, no provisions can be treated to have been enacted purposelessly.

33. Furthermore, it is also a well-settled canon of interpretative jurisprudence that the Court should not give such an interpretation to the provisions which would render the provision ineffective or odious. Once the legislature has enacted the provisions of Order 22, with particular reference to Rule 9, and the provisions of the Limitation Act are applied to the entertainment of such an application, all these provisions have to be given their true and correct meaning and must be applied wherever called for. If we accept the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant that the Court should take a very liberal approach and interpret these provisions (Order 22 Rule 9 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act) in such a manner and so liberally, irrespective of the period of delay, it would amount to practically rendering all these provisions redundant and inoperative. Such approach or interpretation would hardly be permissible in law.

34. Liberal construction of the expression "sufficient cause" is intended to advance substantial justice which itself presupposes no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant, to whom want of bona fide is imputable....”

13. A perusal of the above observations of the Supreme Court clearly shows that unless there is negligence or mala fide conduct, found by the Court, an application to set aside the abatement can be allowed subject to sufficient cause being shown.

14. Coming to the facts of the present case, the tenants are clearly conducting the business of Jewellery from the tenanted premises. The tenants have taken unreasonable pain in placing photographs of the landlady on record to show that she is taking a walk in the park. Such submissions ought not to be entertained by the Court, especially when it involves a widow and an illiterate lady. The medical documents which have been placed on record by the landlady clearly shows that she is suffering from old age problems and the same cannot be disputed as the prescription given by the AIIMS (OPD) is clear and categorical to this effect. Further, the case being one of eviction being sought against the tenants, by virtue of abatement and Order 22, CPC for non-impleadment of legal heirs, the landlady and her family cannot be deprived of their ownership rights of a shop located in a prime commercial area and the benefit to the tenant cannot be so disproportionate. In effect, if the petition stands abated, the landlady may be deprived of her right to seek eviction. That would not only be inequitable but would be unjust. This is not a case where the landlady has not availed of her remedies. Initially, an application under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC was filed followed by an application under Order 22 Rule 9, CPC. Even if it is taken that the abatement is automatic, Order 22 Rule 9, CPC is liberal and sufficient cause can be shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This is not a case which the Court feels that there has been negligence or inaction by the Respondent-landlady. The tenants are clearly interested in retaining the premises for as long as they can inasmuch as they are conducting a flourishing busi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ness from the said shop for a mere payment of Rs. 2,200/- per month, which is allegedly being deposited in the Court. The landlady has in effect not earned a penny for several years from the shop owing to the pendency of the litigation. She has not gained any advantage by delaying the filing of the application either under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC or under Order 22 Rule 9, CPC. In cases of this nature, the Court definitely ought to adopt a liberal approach and a technical and blinkered approach cannot be taken by the Court. 15. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any fault in the two impugned orders passed by the ARC and the RCT. The manner in which the tenants have completely ensured that the petition is not decided and the leave to defend is continuously delayed, makes the tenants liable to pay heavy costs to the Respondent-landlady. Further, the manner in which the photographs and videos have been placed on record of an elderly lady who may be hesitant to even go about her daily activities, owing to such conduct by the tenant, simply to allege that the Respondent is in good health, is in the opinion of this Court in bad taste. 16. The finding that there is no vested right in favour of the tenants is upheld as the tenants cannot, on the ground that the petition has abated, claim a vested right to continue to enjoy rights in the tenanted premises, when admittedly they do not have any independent rights in the premises. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the Respondent-landlady. All pending applications are also disposed of. 17. The leave to defend application shall be decided in a period of 3 months from today, independent of the observations made in the orders deciding the applications under Order 22 Rule 4 and Order 22 Rule 9, CPC. The costs shall be paid on or before the next date of hearing before the learned ARC. The adjustment for costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the Respondent-landlady is granted to the Petitioners-tenants and accordingly Rs. 40,000/- would be payable. Petition dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

23-09-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Nirmala Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-09-2020 Charu Sharma & Others Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Maharshtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-09-2020 Priyamvada Devi Birla (Dec.) & Others Versus Ajay Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-09-2020 Arun Sharma Versus Roxann Sharma In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
08-09-2020 Arun Kumar Sharma Versus Adesh Goel & Others High Court of Delhi
07-09-2020 Suneeta Sharma Versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Punjab & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-09-2020 District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Durga Branch, Varanasi, Through Its Branch Manager & Another Versus Leelawati Devi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Kumar Versus C.B.I. High Court of Delhi
28-08-2020 Krishi Upaj Mandi Versus Shashi Prabha Devi & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
27-08-2020 Girija Devi Agrawal Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Social Welfare & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
26-08-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nand Kishore Sharma & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
25-08-2020 Shiv Charan Sah @ Shiv Charan Kumar Sah Versus The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
25-08-2020 Abhishek Sharma @ Chanchal Pandit Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-08-2020 ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Through Manager, Rajasthan Versus Ram Prakash Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Gauhati
21-08-2020 H.N. Sharma & Anr versus Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 Ishwar Dass Versus Bimla Devi & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
14-08-2020 Nipun Sharma Versus Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
14-08-2020 Union of India & Another Versus M/s. K.C. Sharma & Co. & Others Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma V/S Rakesh Sharma and Others. Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 V.P. Sharma & Others Versus Dr. G.S. Kochar Surgeon Urologist) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-08-2020 Vijay Ramswarup Sharma Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
06-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Kailash Chand Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-08-2020 Devi Marine Food Export Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director, Abdul Razzak Ganj, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-07-2020 Manish Sharma & Another Versus Urmila Arora High Court of Delhi
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Branch Manager, Sahara India Dumraon Branch Buxar Bihar Versus Raj Kumari Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-07-2020 Raksha Devi Vedrsus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
16-07-2020 Kamlesh Devi & Others Versus Bhola Nath & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
15-07-2020 Shiv Khorana (Advocate), Deceased Through LRs. Parveen Khorana Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
14-07-2020 M/s. Sanwaliya Tractor Sales & Service, Rajasthan & Others Versus Bhagwati Devi Bhatt & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
03-07-2020 Kaushalya Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
02-07-2020 Maangi Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
30-06-2020 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Jaipur & Others Versus Manju Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 Tara Prasad Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
24-06-2020 M/s. Atul Aggarwal & Sons Versus M/s. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 M/s. Shiv Narayan Periwal & Sons, Punjab Versus Bharat Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 Bhagwati Devi Versus Suritram (Dead) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
23-06-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Through The General Manager & Another Versus Narendra Kumar Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-06-2020 Ashok Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
18-06-2020 Shiv Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
18-06-2020 Dr. Manoj Kr. Bhagat Versus Masomat Kanchan Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Aman Sharma Versus The Chief Election Commissioner & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
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 Rajan Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
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 Sumitra Devi Versus Special Judge / Addl Distt & Sess. Judge E.C Act Hardoi & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-06-2020 Munni Devi & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-06-2020 M/s. J.S. & M.F. Builders Versus A.K. Chauhan & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-06-2020 M/s. E.V. Mathai & Sons, Represented by Its Managing Partner, Rubber Dealer, Kothamangalam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
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 Prateek Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 Renu Devi & Another Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
30-05-2020 Kshitiz Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
29-05-2020 Mahadev Prasad @ Shiv Ram Goojar & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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
19-05-2020 Mukesh Sharma Versus C.V. Ramana High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-05-2020 Randhir Rambrij Sharma Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
13-05-2020 Shiv Prasad Singh Versus Nageshwar Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-05-2020 Shiv Lal (Since Deceased) Versus Mohan Lal High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-05-2020 Kamla Sharma Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation High Court of Delhi
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 Anurag Sarmah @ Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
29-04-2020 Gopi Chand Versus Geeta Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
22-04-2020 Anand Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-04-2020 Dr. Mahesh Sharma & Another Versus Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Rajasthan
15-04-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Mohani Devi & Another Supreme Court of India
15-04-2020 Sanjeev Sharma Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
13-04-2020 Mamta Sharma & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-04-2020 Mohmmad Yunus Versus Madho Prasad Sharma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
08-04-2020 Shyama Devi Versus Manju Shukla & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-03-2020 Prashant Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
24-03-2020 Babu Lal & Others Versus Para Devi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
23-03-2020 Damyanti Devi Versus Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
23-03-2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others Versus Megha Sharma & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
21-03-2020 Jaiveer Singh Virk Versus Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Anju Sharma Versus Sunita Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
20-03-2020 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank Versus Achhari Devi & Others Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
18-03-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Mora Devi High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
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
18-03-2020 Saurav Sharma Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
18-03-2020 Shambhu Prasad Sharma Advocate Versus Renu Jogi High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
17-03-2020 Aashu Pandit @ Aashu Bajpai @ Aash Narayan Sharma Versus Union of India High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
16-03-2020 Khushboo Devi Versus Indranil Ray Chowdhury & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata