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



Kamal Kishore Baheti & Another v/s State of Rajasthan & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- KAMAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107RJ2007PTC025203

Company & Directors' Information:- KAMAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC025780

Company & Directors' Information:- P KISHORE & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1980PTC033193

Company & Directors' Information:- KISHORE INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101AS1984PTC002242

    Civil Writ Petition No. 6700 of 2011

    Decided On, 28 July 2011

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

    For the Petitioners: N.S. Acharaya, Advocate. For the Respondents: R3, D.D. Chitlangi, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. By way of this writ petition, the plaintiffs-petitioners seek to question the order dated 19.07.2011 as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board') in Revision Petition No.TA/1698/2011/Jodhpur whereby the Board has dismissed the revision petition and in consequence, has affirmed the order dated 17.03.2011 as passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur ('the RAA') in Appeal No.8/2011. The RAA, by the said order dated 17.03.2011 had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and in consequence, affirmed the order dated 17.02.2011 as passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur ('the SDO') in Misc. Application No.8/2011.

2. By the said order dated 17.02.2011, the learned SDO, while dealing with the revenue suit for partition and injunction as filed by the present petitioners against the respondent No.3, considered the prayer for temporary injunction per Section 212 of the Rajasthan 2 Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955') read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and declined the prayer essentially with the observations that the disputed Aaraji had been recorded in the revenue records separately in relation to the parties with separate accounts; i.e., the land in relation to the petitioners was recorded as Khasra No.1036/740, whereas that in relation to the respondent No.3 was recorded as Khasra No.1840/1036. The learned SDO observed, -

'LANGUAGE'

3. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid the plaintiffs-petitioners preferred an appeal that was considered and decided by the RAA by the order dated 17.03.2011. The learned RAA again dealt with the plea of the petitioners that they were standing in the capacity of the co-tenants and found them not entitled to any injunction with the following observations:-

'LANGUAGE'

4. The petitioners took the matter yet further in revision petition before the Board. The Board, however, again found that the plaintiffs-petitioners and the defendant-respondent had purchased separate pieces of land that were recorded in the revenue record separately. The Board, of course, observed that the question as to whether partition had taken place or not would be a matter of consideration in the suit but, as at present, when there were separate Khasra numbers assigned to the separate land holdings of the parties, neither any prima facie case was made out in favour of the petitioners nor the aspects of balance of convenience and irreparable injury were in their favour. The Board, thus, proceeded to dismiss the revision petition with the following observations:-

'LANGUAGE'

5. Seeking to assail the orders aforesaid, it has strenuously been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the fundamental fact remains that the respondent No.3 and so also the predecessors of the petitioners purchased the land as comprised in Khara No.1036/740 that was originally recorded in the name of Chaina Ram. It is clarified that the predecessors of the petitioners purchased the land from Chaina Ram and, thereafter, they executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that the land has been comprised in a joint Khata and neither any dimension has been spelt out in any of the sale deeds nor any division has taken place at the site. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners as well the respondent became co-sharers of the land of Khara No.1036/740. It is submitted that once the parties are standing in the capacity of co-sharers, the respondent No.3, being one of the co-sharers, is not entitled to alter the character of the property in question or to carry out any construction thereat without the consent of the petitioners and without adhering to the requirements of law including those of seeking specific orders for land use conversion which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, have never been obtained by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners has particularly referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary & Ors. v. Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar & Ors., (1983) 4 SCC 31 and Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi 5 Sorab Warden, AIR 1990 SC 867. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the decisions of this Court in Ram Singh & Ors. v. Amra & Ors., 1996 AIHC 3062 and Vinay Kumar v. Devi Lal & Ors: 2006(2) RRT 1369; and the decision of the Honble Allahabad High Court in Awadh Narain v. IVth Addl. District Judge, Jaunpur & Ors., 2002(1) Civil Court Cases 347 (Allahabad). It is submitted that the revenue authorities have proceeded on entirely irrelevant considerations and on the misplaced notion as if the petitioners and the respondent No.3 are having separate pieces of land whereas the fact remains that they are the co-sharers in the same land comprised in Khasra No.1036/740. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that specific method has been provided for division of holdings per Section 53 of the Act of 1955 and no such proceedings having taken place, this property remains a joint one; and the Board too has observed that the question of division is yet to be gone into. According to the learned counsel, when the land in question remains joint and the issue of division is yet to be adjudicated, on the basic principles as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions above referred, the respondent No.3 ought to be restrained from carrying out any construction during the pendency of the suit for preservation of the property.

6. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction in this matter.

7. On the prayer for interim injunction during the pendency of the suit, the three revenue authorities have concurrently found no case 6 for grant of any such injunction essentially with the findings that the holdings of the petitioners and those of the respondent No.3 are recorded separately in the revenue records and prima facie, the petitioners have failed to show if the respondent No.3 was in any manner interfering with the land belonging to them. The submissions that the division is yet to take place and the Board itself has observed in its order that the question of partition was yet to be gone into, when read in the context of other observations and record, clear it is that the Board has only commented on the aspects of the question involved in the suit but at the same time, the Board has also pointed out that no prima facie case exists in favour of the petitioners.

8. Upon examination of the Jamabandi (Annex.1), this Court finds justified the observations as made by the revenue authorities that the holdings of the petitioners and those of the respondent No.3 are recorded separately in the revenue records. In the said Jamabandi, the entries in relation to the land in question are to the following effect: -

'LANGUAGE'

9. It is but apparent that out of the land of Khasra No.1036/740, 3 bighas and 19 biswas of land as comprised in Khasra No.1842/1036 7 has been recorded in the name of respondent No.3 with lagan of 0.63 whereas 4 bighas and 1 biswa of land as comprised in Khasra No.1036/740 has been recorded in the name of the alleged predecessors of the petitioners with lagan 0.65. The copies of the sale deeds, placed on record as Annexures-2 and 3, also make it clear that such sale deeds were executed and registered on the same date, i.e., 13.10.2005 but then, in the sale deed Annexure-2 the vendor Chaina Ram specifically sold 4 bighas and 1 biswas of land of Khasra No.1036/740 to the predecessors of the petitioners, whereas he sold another 3 bighas and 19 bighas of land of this very Khasra No.1036/740 to the respondent No.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that such recitals in the sale deeds are only in regard to the area of the land but cannot be taken to be specifying a particular piece of land with boundaries so as to come to the conclusion that separate parcels of land were sold by the two different sale deeds; and contended that the purchasers became co-sharers by virtue of the said sale deeds. The submissions have their short-comings because in the sale deeds executed on the same date, the vendor specifically stated selling 4 bighas and 1 biswas of land to the predecessors of the petitioners and 3 bighas and 19 biswas of the land to the respondent No.3. It would be a matter, of course, for the consideration in the suit as to whether in fact a division has taken place or not and the Board has rightly observed in that regard but then, in the existing position of the record where separate pieces of land have been sold and then, have been recognized in the revenue record as such with different identification numbers and with different lagan, the learned revenue authorities cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in not 8 finding prima facie case in favour of the petitioners.

10. There is no and there cannot be any quarrel on the principles enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gangubai (supra) that grant or refusal is considered on the touch-stone of the prejudice likely to be caused but then, in the present case, in the first place, no prima facie case is found in favour of the petitioners. Then, during the course of submissions, the questions were precisely posed to the learned counsel for the petitioners if the respondent No. 3 was in any manner raising construction beyond 3 bighas and 19 biswas of land or intruding into 4 bighas 1 biswa of land said to be belonging to the petitioner to which, the learned counsel submitted that raising any construction on the land in question would be interfering with the rights of the co-sharers and with the joint property. The position again gets deflected to the very fundamental aspect that jointness as alleged by the petitioners is in serious doubt and the existing record is to the contrary. In the given set of facts, no case for grant of temporary injunction is made out on the basis of the principles in Gaugubai (supra).

11. The decision in Dorab Cawasji Wardens case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. Therein, the issues related to the house property originally purchased by the father and mother of the plaintiff where construction had been raised subsequent to the purchase. After the death of the mother of the plaintiff, he and his father came to own the property as surviving joint tenants. Under an agreement, they agreed to hold the property as tenants in common, each having equal undivided share therein so that each can dispose of his undivided share. Subsequently, the plaintiffs father transferred his undivided share in favour of another 9 son. Thus, the plaintiff and his brother came to hold equal undivided = share each as tenants in common. The plaintiffs brother died and his widow and two minor sons sold their undivided = share; and the plaintiff filed the suit against the vendors under Section 44 of the Transfer Property Act on the ground that the suit property was a dwelling house belonging to the undivided family. In the given fact situation and the position of record, the Honble Supreme Court observed that in the absence of document evidencing partition of the suit house by metes and bounds and on the documentary evidence showing that the property was held by the plaintiff and his brother in equal undivided shares, there was a prima facie case about dwelling house belong to a undivided family; and the transfer was prima facie within the mischief of second paragraph of Section 44. The other factual aspects of the matter were also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the totality of the circumstances, the Hon'ble Court found the case fit for granting requisite injunction. In the first place the present one is a matter relating to the revenue paying land and not a dwelling house. In any case, as observed above, the existing record contradicts the suggestions about jointness.

12. The decision in Ram Singhs (supra) again related to the dispute in regard to the land jointly held by the parties. As noticed herein, in the given status of the record, it is difficult to accept as at present that the petitioners stand in the capacity of co-sharers. This decision is also of no help to the petitioners.

13. In Vinay Kumars case (supra), there had been a dispute about the boundaries of the plots claimed by the two parties; and that was found to be a bona fide dispute calling for a status-quo order. The situation herein, as notice

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d above, remains entirely different as 10 there had been different sale deeds made in relation to the different parcels of land; and in the record of rights, separate Khasra numbers with separate lagans have been mentioned. 14. In regard to the decision in Awadh Narains case (supra), again the position remains the same. The dispute therein had been regarding a joint property and prima facie it was found that both the parties were co-sharers with partition having not taken place. As observed in this case, the very fundamental facts are different and prima facie the claim of the petitioners as alleged co-sharers has not been accepted. 15. In view of what has been discussed above, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the orders impugned so as to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction and, therefore, this writ petition is required to be dismissed. 16. However, in the interest of justice, it is made clear that the observations, whether made by this Court in this order or by the learned subordinate revenue authorities in the orders impugned, shall remain confined for the purpose of considering grant or refusal of temporary injunction only and shall not otherwise have bearing on the merits of the case of either of the parties in the suit. 17. With the observations forgoing, the petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-07-2020 State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Cane, Lko & Another Versus Kaushal Kishore High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
11-06-2020 Pawan Kishore Harlalka Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-06-2020 Dr. Kishore Kumar Chouhan & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-05-2020 Brij Kishore Dwivedi Versus Union of India, represented by and through the Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi in the Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Tripura
01-05-2020 Neeru Dhir & Others Versus Kamal Kishore Dhir & Others High Court of Delhi
23-04-2020 Kamal Parti Versus Raj Kumar Parti & Another High Court of Delhi
21-04-2020 State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Chikitsa Shiksha Evam Parshikshan, Government of U.P., Lucknow & Others Versus Dr. Raj Kamal Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-04-2020 Kaushal Kishore Mishra & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
17-03-2020 Kamal Chatterjee, Kolkata & Others V/S Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-03-2020 Kishore Kumar & Another Versus The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - I, EDF-III, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Piyush Kamal & Others Versus The State of Bihar Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
28-02-2020 M/s. Jackson Laboratories Private Limited, A Private Limited Company Registered under The provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, Represented by its Managing Director, Jugal Kishore, Amritsar V/S Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare (H2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Iqbal Singh Versus Kamal Dev & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
25-02-2020 Kamal Encon Industries Limited Through its Authorized Representative Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary World Trade Centre, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
20-02-2020 Gulli @ Nand Kishore Versus State of Uttar Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-02-2020 M/s. GAIL (India) Limited, R.K. Puram, New Delhi Versus M/s. Arkay Energy(Rameswaram)Limited, Rep. by its President (Commercial and Legal) R. Jarard Kishore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 Kishore Singh & Others Versus State, Through P.P. High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
06-02-2020 Chatter Singh Rao Versus Kamal Kumar High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others Versus Shyam Kishore Singh Supreme Court of India
05-02-2020 Tarun Keshrichand Shah & Another Versus M/s. Kishore Engineering Company & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
31-01-2020 Sri Indla Kishore Kumar Versus State, rep. by the Deputy Supdt of Police Anti Corruption Bureau Kurnool District through Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-01-2020 Khaled Kamal Hussein Mohamed Kassem Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-01-2020 Sri Kamal Arjya Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
24-01-2020 Nawal Kishore Shaw Versus Manoj Shaw High Court of Jharkhand
20-01-2020 Arvind Kishore Versus Neha Mathur High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
14-01-2020 M/s. M.S. Shah Developers Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Kishore Birbal Soni National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-01-2020 Nand Kishore Choubey (died) & Others Versus Maniram & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-01-2020 Kamal Nath, Accountant, Divisional Office Tezpur, Sonitpur Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
20-12-2019 Bank of Baroda Versus Dr. Kamal Gupta & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-12-2019 Kishore V. Gandhi Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhawan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
19-11-2019 Bharat Bhushan Versus Kamal Singh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-11-2019 Kishore Versus Joint Commissioner & Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Certificate, Scrutiny Committee & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
07-11-2019 Kamal Ranjan Ghosh Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Co-operation & Farmer's Welfare, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
04-11-2019 Nand Kishore Sonthalla Versus M/s. Deutsche Bank AG, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-11-2019 Kamal Navin Chandra Modi & Another Versus R.T. Construction Prop. Rabi Tiwari & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-10-2019 Richa Gaur Versus Kamal Kishore Gaur High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-10-2019 Sanwarmal Saini Versus Jugal Kishore Jhunjhunuwala High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
11-10-2019 Kamal Kishore @ Lalaji Versus The State of Delhi High Court of Delhi
27-09-2019 Omkar Co-operative Hsg. Society Ltd. & Another Versus Kishore Kalyanji Badiani & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-09-2019 ICICI Bank Ltd., Represented By Its Authorized Signatory, Vdodara Versus Kishore Kumar Bodke National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-09-2019 Narayan Kuamr Versus Kamal Kishore Gupta High Court of Delhi
13-09-2019 Jugal Kishore Mishra Versus B.P. Singh & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-09-2019 Kamal Mitra Versus M/s. K.G. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
09-09-2019 Ram Kishore Ishwar Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
06-09-2019 Kamal Kishore Sharma Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Through Police Station State Economic Offence High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
04-09-2019 Kishore Dungmali (Rai) Versus Shiva Kumar Rai (Dungmali) & Others High Court of Sikkim
03-09-2019 Kishore Sharma Versus Sachin Dubey Supreme Court of India
27-08-2019 Jugal Kishore Mahendra Biyani Versus The Income Tax Officer High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
23-08-2019 Kishore Kakumal Keswani Versus State of Goa through the Inspector General of Police & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
21-08-2019 Raj Kishore Yadav Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
21-08-2019 Raj Kishore Yadav Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
21-08-2019 Raj Kishore Yadav Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-08-2019 V.G. Kishore, C.R.C. Co-Ordinator, BRC Ranni, Pathanamthitta Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of General Education, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
09-08-2019 Ved Prakash Abbot Versus Kishore K. Avarsekar & Others High Court of Delhi
06-08-2019 Kamal Yashwant Patil Versus Suryakant Hindurao Patil & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-07-2019 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ing Vysya Bank Ltd.) & Another Versus Dr. Kishore Manganiramji Laturia & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-07-2019 Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani & Another Versus State of Maharashtra Though Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2019 Nawal Kishore Singh Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
10-07-2019 M/s. Sony India through its Authorised Ms. Meena Bose Versus Kamal Ghosh West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
10-07-2019 Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Another Versus Praveen Kumar Singh High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-07-2019 Naval Kishore Mishra Versus State of U.P. & Others Supreme Court of India
03-07-2019 Station Master, Rajnagar Railway Station, Madhubani, Bihar & Others Versus Kamal Narain Roy National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-06-2019 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus M/s. M. Kishore a Proprietorship/Partnership/Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-06-2019 Kishore Deshpande Versus The State of Maharashtra Through office of Public Prosecutor & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-06-2019 Anil Ashok Kagale & Others Versus Kamal Shatrughna Mali High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-05-2019 Kaushal Kishore Versus State NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
24-05-2019 Nanda Kishore Prosad Versus Raj Kumar Ram High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-05-2019 Kamal Sharma & Others Versus Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
22-05-2019 Kamal Chaudhary Versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
13-05-2019 Nanda Kishore Mishra Versus State of Orissa & Others High Court of Orissa
13-05-2019 Kamal Kishore Singh @ Komal Kumar Singh Versus Dudhnath Tiwary High Court of Jharkhand
10-05-2019 Raj Kishore Harbansh Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Gauhati
10-05-2019 Nand Kishore Prasad Versus Dr. Mohib Hamidi & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2019 Kamla Homes and Lifestyle Private Limited Versus Pushp Kamal Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-04-2019 Kamal Mahaling Patil Versus Indubai Mahaling Patil & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-04-2019 Kishore B. Jethwani Versus Raju M. Jethwani & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-04-2019 Charan Kamal Chopra Versus Dr. R.K. Gupta & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-04-2019 Kamal Versus Archana Raju @ Rajaram Bhujbal & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
10-04-2019 State of Sikkim Versus Kamal Subba, East Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
10-04-2019 State of Sikkim Versus Kamal Subba, East Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
09-04-2019 M. Kishore Kumar Versus Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2019 Kishore Debbarma Versus The State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
05-04-2019 Kamal Prasad Versus Kumud Vaidya High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-03-2019 Kishore Kumar Versus Mariappan High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-03-2019 Kamal Singh & Others Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-03-2019 Kalipada Shikari Versus Kamal Das West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-03-2019 Kuldeep Kishore Sharma Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-03-2019 Swagath Hotels Private Limited., rep. by Managing Director, M. Kishore Reddy Versus M/s. Hotel Swagath rep. by its Partner D. Ravinder High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-03-2019 Kamal Kumar Bhuwalka, Managing Director, M/s. Bhuwalka Castings & Forgings Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd) & Others Versus C.C.E.-Bangalore Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
08-03-2019 Kamal Kumar Bhuwalka, Managing Director M/S Bhuwalka Castings & Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd) & Others Versus C.C.E. Bangalore Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
28-02-2019 Kamal Mahaling Patil Versus Indubai Mahaling Patil & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-02-2019 The South Malabar Gramin Bank, Malappuram, Represented by The General Manager K. Kishore Kumar Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kozhikode & Another High Court of Kerala
19-02-2019 Ram Sakhi Devi Versus Amar Kishore Singh & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-02-2019 Shyan Sundar Debnath Versus Nabendu Kishore Sinha High Court of Gauhati
12-02-2019 Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
12-02-2019 Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
11-02-2019 Kamal Kumar Kothari & Others Versus State of Tripura & Another High Court of Tripura
08-02-2019 Kamal Kumar Malhotra(Since Deceased) Through Lrs. Versus Roshan Lal Monga High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-02-2019 Kamal Das Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-02-2019 United India Insurance Co Ltd. Versus Ram Kishore & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad