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



Joy Joseph v/s Desai Homes represented by V.R. Desai & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- K H HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45209TG2014PTC096357

Company & Directors' Information:- S G HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2007PTC116514

Company & Directors' Information:- N-HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2013PTC056395

Company & Directors' Information:- V. M. HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102MH2010PTC205054

Company & Directors' Information:- D G HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC170366

Company & Directors' Information:- S K HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2010PTC148173

Company & Directors' Information:- S S HOMES PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U70101WB1994PTC064233

Company & Directors' Information:- K V R HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200KA2013PTC069802

Company & Directors' Information:- R G HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U70101WB2005PTC106481

Company & Directors' Information:- M L HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN2004PTC053141

Company & Directors' Information:- L. K. HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TN2007PTC065798

Company & Directors' Information:- JOSEPH AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U01211KL1954PTC000507

Company & Directors' Information:- T V HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109TN2009PTC073562

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND J HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109KL2015PTC038666

Company & Directors' Information:- P. S. HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR2008PTC009838

Company & Directors' Information:- E R JOSEPH & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28920WB1955PTC022404

Company & Directors' Information:- S R R HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200KA2008PTC046495

Company & Directors' Information:- R A HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2002PTC134922

Company & Directors' Information:- J HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TZ2012PTC018247

Company & Directors' Information:- S J HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109WB2011PTC167997

Company & Directors' Information:- R P HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200BR2010PTC015240

Company & Directors' Information:- DESAI R AND C PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140GJ2000PTC037395

Company & Directors' Information:- G M HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203KA1996ULT020888

Company & Directors' Information:- M D HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH2002PTC138309

Company & Directors' Information:- A R M HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28910UP2015PTC071525

Company & Directors' Information:- M G HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45204HR2014PTC052239

Company & Directors' Information:- O P HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100KL2015PTC037933

Company & Directors' Information:- V.R. & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72100DL1999PTC101787

Company & Directors' Information:- DESAI (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090MH1960PTC011789

Company & Directors' Information:- DESAI AND COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1949PLC007486

    First Appeal No. 663 of 2016

    Decided On, 19 February 2020

    At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. R. RANJIT
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: B.A. Krishnakumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2, T.C. Krishna, Advocate.



Judgment Text


R. Ranjit, Member

The 1st complainant has filed this appeal aggrieved by the Order dated 02.04.2016 in C.C No. 586/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, in short the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the finding that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and that no unfair trade practice as alleged against the opposite party is made out by the complainant.

2. The 1st and 2nd complainants are father and son respectively and are co-owners of the apartment No. 37/2343 F5 constructed by the builder M/s. Desai Homes, Ernakulam, the opposite party. Lured and induced by the advertisement published by the opposite party in the year 2005, the complainants booked an apartment in a housing project by name “Platinum planet”. It was advertised in the brochure that the project will be an urban village living, a novel housing project, spread over in an area of 4 acres of land offering 384 flats. A mini super market, landscaped gardens, basket ball court and many other things were the additional attractions offered. The project was to be completed with the above facilities in the year 2007. However, the opposite party miserably failed to complete the project as offered. It was during 2010, after 3 years of scheduled date of completion, the apartment was handed over to the complainant and the deed of conveyance was executed. Thereafter the complainants started occupying the apartment. None of the facilities offered such as children’s play area, mini super market, day care facility, landscaped garden, Sauna steam bath facility etc. were provided as promised. The open area provided was only less than 10% as against the promised area of 40%. In spite of repeated requests made by the complainants as well as the other occupants of the apartment complex, the opposite party failed to provide the common amenities offered in the brochure. The opposite party has converted the open area into covered car parking area. The conduct of the opposite party is breach of contract and it would amount to unfair trade practice. The complainants therefore prayed for an order directing the opposite party to provide all the amenities offered by them in the brochure and to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation for the delay in providing amenities and for causing mental agony to the complainants. It is also sought to direct the opposite party to hand over the project to the owner's association after fulfilling all the amenities offered in the brochure.

3. Opposite party filed version contending as follows: The brochure prepared by the opposite party is only for illustrative purposes. The details of facilities and amenities and terms of the contract are mentioned in the agreement for sale and agreement for construction executed by the complainants and the opposite party. The parties are purely governed by the terms of the agreement and the complainants cannot seek anything beyond the terms of the agreement dated 15.12.2002. The non-completion of the project in the year 2007 was for valid reason and the delay could not be attributed to the opposite party. Delay occurred due to order of stay issued by the Corporation of Cochin which was vacated only on 27.11.2008. The allegation that 40% of the total area was to be set apart for landscaping is totally incorrect. There was no unfair trade practice or any breach of contract on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Evidence in the case consists of oral testimony of 1st complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 marked on his side. The commissioner was examined as PW2 and the commission report was marked as Ext. C1. The authorized representative of the opposite party gave oral evidence as DW1.

5. The District Forum on the basis of the materials produced and after considering the rival contention found that the authority to exercise rights over the common area is the apartment owner’s association and hence the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The District Forum further found that the complainant failed to prove the allegation of unfair trade practice against the opposite party. The District Forum on the basis of these findings dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal the 1st complainant has filed this appeal. In the appeal the 2nd complainant is arrayed as the 2nd respondent since he is working outside India.

6. Heard the appellant and the 1st respondent. Perused the records. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the complainant opted to purchase the flat on seeing the brochure and he was lured by the tall claims found in the brochure. The failure on the part of the opposite party to adhere to the terms and conditions in the brochure constitute unfair trade practice as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The brochure was misleading and was made to hoodwink the customers. The opposite party has not done their obligation to fulfill the promise made out in the brochure. The brochure is to be treated as a part of the agreement. The commission report clearly pointed out the things that are to be carried out by the opposite party and also pointed out that many promises made in the brochure were not fulfilled by the opposite party. The brochure forms the integral part of the agreement. Opposite party in not fulfilling the conditions in the brochure, has done unfair trade practice, which aspect was ignored by the District Forum. He prays for allowing the appeal as well as the complaint.

7. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, contended that the brochure prepared by the 1st respondent/opposite party is only for illustrative purpose. The details of facilities and amenities and terms of contract are mentioned in the agreement for sale and agreement for construction executed by the complainant and opposite party. The parties are purely governed by the terms of agreement and complainants cannot seek anything beyond the terms of the agreement which was executed on 15.12.2002. The opposite party has made the construction as per the building permit obtained from Corporation of Cochin. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. We have considered the arguments canvassed by both the counsel. In the agreement for sale there is mention about the common area and common facilities which are assigned to the complainant as well as all other owners of the apartment. The common areas and facilities which are made mention of in the agreement are “Proportionate share and right on the common areas and common facilities like lift, staircase and landing, flooring, concealed wiring and modern fittings, water tank, septic tank together with the easement rights in all other common facilities and accessories thereon along with other owners of the apartment without causing obstruction or inconvenience to others and to hold the said undivided share in the land along with other co-owners of the said land including the half part in depth of the joints between the ceiling of the said apartment and floor of the said apartment and internal wall between such levels”. The complainant canvassed that some of the facilities as stated in the brochure are made available to the owners of the apartment by the builder. To prove the same he had taken out a commission and his report is marked as Ext. C1. In the commission report, the facilities provided by the builder, as shown in the brochure are stated. The common facilities provided by the builder are mentioned in Ext. C1 report by the commissioner. The facilities provided by the builder as per Ext. C1 report are the play area, mini club house, a room for day care facility and some open area is used for landscape gardens and lawns. One guest room and basket ball area are also provided by the builder. From the above it can be noted that the builder has given some facilities mentioned in the brochure though not mentioned in the agreement, which clearly shows that the builder as well as the flat purchaser had fully known that all the facilities would be made available as mentioned in the brochure. Although the brochure is not part of the agreement, the builder/1st respondent has partly acted as per the brochure. The Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of “Ashok Kumar Shivpuri Vs. Ashok B. Chajar, CMD, Arihant Enterprises reported in 2019(4) CPR 38 (NC)” has held that “Assurance given in the brochure is the initial promise made based on which flat purchaser makes a decision whether to purchase the said flat or not”. Thus though specifically the brochure was not part of the agreement it can be so treated. In the brochure the 1st respondent builder had made many promises to the prospective buyer in order to allure him to buy the apartment. The specific case of the complainant is that they had booked the apartment lured by the facilities set out in the brochure. The facilities made mention of in the brochure are health club, sauna and steam, half basket ball court, billiards, table tennis and facility for dart, carroms and chess. Waste water recycling, rain water harvesting, landscaped gardens and lawns, guest room, driver’s dormitory, mini super market, day care facility and children’s play area are the other facilities mentioned in the brochure. The commissioner in Ext. C1 report has stated that some of the facilities though made mention of in the brochure are not provided by the builder. The commissioner has pinpointed the facilities not provided by the builder. They are: Half of the play area is converted into car parking area, the mini market is not functioning, one room which is allotted as day care is not functioning, there is no facility for waste water recycling, sewage treatment plant is not functioning, there is no rain water harvesting system, sauna and steam bathing facility though provided is not functioning, 40% of the area set apart for landscaped garden as stated in the brochure is converted into covered car parking area. From the commission report it is seen that though many facilities were provided in the brochure as stated above, all these facilities are not provided by the builder. It is evident from the records that the respondent at the time of securing the booking had painted a very rosy picture so as to attract the complainants to invest their hard earned money in the project in question, which was to be constructed by the builder. The contention of the respondent in this regard is that they have constructed the project as per the approved plan. The allegation that 40% of the area set apart for landscaped garden has been converted into car parking area is not correct. They have provided all the amenities mentioned in the agreement entered into between the parties. The structure is put up in accordance with the approved plan and the allegation that the open area is less than 10% instead of 40% of the total area made by the complainant is a misleading statement. The entire structure is put up in tune with the approved plan and permit. The brochure is only for illustration and they are bound only by the terms of the agreement between the parties.

9. We fail to understand how the respondent could, after giving a promise that he would provide all the facilities in the brochure and advertisement, back out from the promise and state that these facilities are not mentioned in the agreement for sale. The act of the 1st respondent/builder in not providing the ameniti

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

es offered in the brochure and utilizing the open area for other purposes definitely amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. The complainants are deprived of these facilities though promised in the brochure. The complainants had bought the apartment believing that all the facilities offered would be provided by the builder and since these facilities are not provided, naturally the complainants would have suffered much mental agony and suffering. The builder/1st respondent is, therefore, liable to compensate them for the injuries caused to the complainant. In these circumstances we feel it just and proper to allow an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The District Forum without looking into the above aspects dismissed the complaint which is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. We do so. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and consequently the complaint C.C. No. 586/2012 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam is partly allowed. The 1st respondent/opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum. Parties to suffer their respective costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-09-2020 M/s. Desai Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Shree Sainath Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-09-2020 M/s. Unicorn Maritimes (India) Private Limited., Represented by its Director Arul Augustin Joseph Chennai Versus Valency Internation Trading Pvt Limited., Represented by its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 John Joseph, Advocate, Chairman Voters Alliance, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 Dr. Joseph Freeman Motha & Another Versus Sudha Vijayan & Another High Court of Kerala
28-08-2020 Mukeshbhai Versibhai Desai Versus The Commissioner of Police & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-08-2020 Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan & Aleya Sultana & Others Versus DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd. (Now Known As Begur Omr Homes Pvt. Ltd.) & Others Supreme Court of India
19-08-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Jollyamma Joseph Versus State of Kerala Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
22-07-2020 Rajubhai @ Prakashbhai Mafatbhai Desai Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
21-07-2020 Shoby Joseph & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Crime No. 367 of 2019 of CB, Central Unit-IV, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 G. Bhagavat Singh Versus Manoj Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Jai Joseph Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
15-07-2020 Manu Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Dr. K.J. Joseph & Others Versus The Mattathur Grama Panchayath, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Bilsy Joseph, now residing at 3743, Falkner Drive, United States of America, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder (Mother), Rosamma Joseph, Kottayam Versus Registrar of Births & Deaths, Changanassery Muncipality, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
19-06-2020 In Re: Contagion of Covid-19 Virus In Children Protection Homes High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-06-2020 In Re Contagion of Covid 19 Virus In Children Protection Homes Supreme Court of India
05-06-2020 Sahyog Homes Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-05-2020 Joe Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
28-05-2020 Desai vipul bhai mafa bhai Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
05-05-2020 Sujay Desai & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-05-2020 Jobin Joseph Versus Uma Thomas & Another High Court of Kerala
30-04-2020 United Nurses Association, Through Its State President Shoby Joseph, Thrissur Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
28-04-2020 Kane Joseph Manoah Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
08-04-2020 In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Children Protection Homes Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-04-2020 In Re Contagion of COVID 19 Virus In Children Protection Homes Supreme Court of India
01-04-2020 Sujay Desai & Another Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 K.T. Joseph & Another Versus Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 Shyla @ Shymol Kamalasanan & Another Versus Joseph High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 M/s. Logical Developers Private Limited, New Delhi, Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Jose Joseph, Kochi & Another Versus M/s. Muthoot Mini Financiers Private Limited, Pathanamthitta, Represented by Its Chairman & Managing Director Roy M. Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
10-03-2020 Ramesh Nahar, Proprietor Nahar Credits, Chennai, Rep. himself & Other creditors as leader of the consortium of & Others Versus Land Marvel Homes, A Registered Partnership Firm Rep. by its Managing Partner, M. Veerashekar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2020 Shail Jiju Versus Biju Joseph & Another High Court of Kerala
09-03-2020 V.Y. Thomas @ Sajimon Versus V.Y. Joseph High Court of Kerala
03-03-2020 Jet Airways (India) Ltd., represented by its Airport Manager Versus Thomas Joseph Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
02-03-2020 Girikand Travels Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dattatray Hanamant Desai & Others Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
28-02-2020 Sabu Joseph Versus Kerala State Election Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, State Election Commission Office, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
24-02-2020 V.R. Bhoopathy & Another Versus The Additional Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 Lalu Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Proseucutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam for The Circle Inspector of Police, Nilambur High Court of Kerala
20-02-2020 General Manager, Hmt Machine Tools Ltd., Through Its Deputy General Manager (Hr) Shri Joseph Pradeep Keshri Minz, Ajmer (Raj) & Others Versus Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (Raj) & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
19-02-2020 Marthoma Syrian Church, Represented by Most Rev. Dr. Joseph, Marthoma Metropolitan, Thiruvalla & Others Versus Jessie Thampi (Died) & Others High Court of Kerala
17-02-2020 Sukhdev Singh Dhillon & Another Versus DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Chandigarh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 E. Arputhadhas Versus E. Joseph (Died) & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Rasul Ganibhai Shaikh (Desai) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-02-2020 Tonymon Joseph Versus General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai & Others High Court of Kerala
05-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Ajit Sinh Sitaram Desai High Court of Judicature at Bombay
31-01-2020 Kolli Venkata Mohana Rao & Another Versus Joseph Christian Krishnaraj (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 M/s. ARN City Homes, Rep. by its Managing Partner Pa. Paranthaman Versus V. Satishkumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 J. Xavier Versus Joseph High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 Desai Mittal Baldevbhai Versus State of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-01-2020 K. John & Others Versus John Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
14-01-2020 Joseph Yemmiganoor @ Kadakoti Versus State, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
09-01-2020 Gulabrao Vishwas Desai Versus Bhau Dhondi Desai, since deceased by his heirs and L.R.s & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-01-2020 Mukeshbhai Versibhai Desai Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
08-01-2020 P.A. Jinas, The Managing Director, Galaxy Homes Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Kochi High Court of Kerala
06-01-2020 Pankaj Garg Versus DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-12-2019 Joseph Tajet Versus State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary To Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
12-12-2019 Nobby M. George, Changanassery Tlauk, Rep. by Power of Attorney holder his mother Alice George, Changanassery Versus Jossy Joseph, Kuttanad Taluk, Now Staying With Her Sister Raji Joseph, Erskine Court, Nanuet 10954, New York, USA High Court of Kerala
10-12-2019 Joseph Charles & Others Versus State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station-South, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-12-2019 P.T. Joseph, Proprietor, Cheryl Enterprises, Elamakkara, Ernakulam Versus Kabeer Husain Minanna & Others High Court of Kerala
03-12-2019 V. Devika Rani @ V.R. Dhevika & Others Versus R. Varadarajulu & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-11-2019 M. Jeyamary Versus M. Joseph Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
28-11-2019 V.R. Somasundaram Versus The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-11-2019 Joseph Mathai @ Jose Versus State of Kerala, Thiruvampady Police Station, Crime No.199/07 High Court of Kerala
22-11-2019 Jewel Homes Pvt. Ltd., Rep By Its Managing Director Casagrante Building, Kochi & Others Versus Jewel Whitefield Apartment Owners' Association, Rep By Its President KP Ayoob & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-11-2019 Suristh Tiwary Versus Amarpali Homes Projects Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
18-11-2019 Deepa Rachal George Versus Sherin Annie Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
14-11-2019 Rev. Fr. L. Joseph Paulraj Versus St. Mary's Cathedral Trust Rep. by its Secretary-cum-Treasurer Rev. Fr. Devaraj & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-11-2019 Joseph Antony Gerard Versus J.L. Malarvizhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-11-2019 Ashwin Bhanulal Desai & Another Versus Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-10-2019 Shobha Desai Versus The Dean Goa Medical College & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
04-10-2019 IC 29547 L Bobby Joseph Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
01-10-2019 Bibin Thomas Versus Firm P.J. Homes – a Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act having its registered office at Thiruvananthapuram – Rep by its Managing Partner –P.J. John & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
26-09-2019 Priya Versus Biju Joseph High Court of Kerala
20-09-2019 Ridge Crafts Homes Private Limited Versus Resident Welfare Association (Regd.) & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-09-2019 M.M. Joseph Versus Yoonus & Others High Court of Kerala
19-09-2019 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Egmore, Chennai, Represented by Chief Manager, Stephen Joseph, Kochi Versus Joseph Mohanan & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2019 Alwin Joseph Versus The Superintendent of Police, Erode & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-09-2019 Sushil Joseph Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II (Authority under the Payment of Wages Act) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-08-2019 M/s. V.R. Muthu & Brothers, Represented by its Partner, R. Muthu Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act), Madurai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2019 Paul Joseph Shirole & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-08-2019 B.S. Shabana Versus Kevin Joseph Selvadoray High Court of Karnataka
22-08-2019 State of Kerala, Represented by deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Law), State Goods & Service Tax Department, Ernakulam Versus Raphel T. Joseph High Court of Kerala
21-08-2019 Vasantiben Dhansukhbhai Desai Since Decd. Through Heirs Versus The State of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
21-08-2019 M/s Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd., V.H. Kammath Towers, Kadathy, Muvattupuzha Versus James K. Joseph & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
20-08-2019 Lagdhirbhai Laxmanbhai Rabari(Desai) Versus State of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
19-08-2019 South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Another Versus M/s. Today Homes And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
09-08-2019 Joseph Thomas @ Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
09-08-2019 Charly Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Industries Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2019 Gajendra Shenvi Desai & Another Versus The Chief Secretary, State of Goa, Secretariat & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
30-07-2019 Sijo Joseph Versus The Transport Commissioner, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
29-07-2019 Geemol Joseph, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder Losan Joseph Versus Kousthabhan & Another High Court of Kerala
04-07-2019 V.R. Beedu & Others Versus State of Karnataka by Department of Youth Service & Sports Vidhana Soudha, Rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-06-2019 Prabhakar Ramchandra Desai Sita & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-06-2019 V.R. Bhaskaran Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-06-2019 Joseph Thomas @ Thampi Kannanthanam & Others Versus Molly George @ Molamma High Court of Kerala
14-06-2019 C. Joseph Versus The District Collector, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-06-2019 V.M. Joseph Versus Kadanad Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
12-06-2019 K.K. Krishnan Kutty & Others Versus M/s. Green Tree Homes and Ventures Pvt.Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Sathya Murthy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras