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



L. Raju v/s Gurappa Reddy


Company & Directors' Information:- REDDY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24232DL2012PLC236860

    Crl.A.No. 13 of 2010

    Decided On, 09 July 2015

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR

    For the Appellant: S. Girish, Advocate. For the Respondent: T. Subramanya & Assts, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Crl.A is filed under Section 378(2) Cr.P.C. praying to set-aside the Acquittal order dated 23.5.09 passed on the file of 16th Addl. CMM., at Bangalore in C.C. No. 9769/2008 – Acquitting the Respondent/Accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and convict the Respondent/Accused for the above said offence.)

1. The appellant was the complainant before XVI ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.NO. 9769/2008. By judgment dated 23.5.2009, respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Hence, this appeal by the complainant.

2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as under:-

The respondent (hereinafter be called as ‘accused’) borrowed a sum of Rs. 6.00 lakh as hand loan from the appellant (hereinafter called as ‘complainant’) to meet his family financial necessities during the month of January 2006. The accused repaid an amount of Rs. 88,000/- out of the loan amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-. For the balance amount of Rs. 5,12,000/-, the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 2,62,000/- and another cheque for Rs. 2,50,000/- dated 13.3.2008. On presentation of both the cheques by the complainant through his banker for encashment, both the cheques were dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant got issued a demand notice dated 20.2.2008 to the accused both by RPAD and Under certificate of posting demanding the payment of the amount under both the cheques within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The notice sent to the accused by RPAD and UCP was duly served upon the accused. The accused gave untenable reply, which made the complainant to file a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. The accused appeared and denied the accusation. The complainant in order to prove his case, led his evidence as PW-1 and marked Exs-P1 to P11. The accused on the other hand in support of his defence led his evidence as DW-1 and marked Exs-D1 to D5. The learned Magistrate upon hearing the arguments and upon consideration of the entire material placed on record by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused holding that the complainant failed to prove his case.

I have heard the submission made by the learned counsel. Perused the records and the judgment passed by the Court below.

4. At the outset, it has to be stated that all the necessary conditions to file a complaint for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act have been duly complied with. There is no dispute between the parties in that regard. What has been disputed by the accused is that the cheques in question were not issued by the accused to the complainant towards the discharge of legally recoverable debt. It is the case of the accused that he had never taken hand loan of Rs. 6.00 lakh from the complainant nor he issued the two cheques referred to by the complainant in favour of the complainant. Since the accused has admitted his signatures on both the cheques, at the most, presumption can be drawn under Section 139 of the N.I. Act that the cheques were issued towards the discharge of legal liability. But the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a rebuttable presumption. Accused can rebut the presumption by leading evidence or from the evidence placed on record by the complainant. The accused need not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden to be discharged by an accused is that of a plaintiff or defendant in a civil suit i.e. preponderance of probability. Further it has to be stated that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is presumption as to legally recoverable debt. But there is no presumption as to the existence of debt or liability. Therefore, the existence of debt and liability of the accused towards the complainant is to be established by the complainant by cogent and convincing evidence. It is in this background, the evidence placed on record by the parties will have to be appreciated.

5. The case of the complainant that he advanced a hand loan of Rs. 6.00 lakh to the accused in the month of January 2006. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence for having advanced such a huge amount as hand loan to the accused. No specific date on which the amount was advanced as hand loan is not forthcoming in the complaint. There is no evidence to show that the complainant having withdrawn an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- from his bank account in Janata Seva Cooperative Bank Limited so as to advance the same to accused as could be seen from Ex.P11 his account extract. Before the presentation of the cheques for encashment, a notice was issued by the accused on 16.1.2008 to M/s. Syndicate Finance Corporation represented by its partners Sri. L. Raju and Sri. C. Basavaraju as per Ex-D1. L. Raju is none other than the complainant. In the said notice, the accused has stated that he had approached the firm M/s. Syndicate Finance Corporation for hand loan when he was in need of it and at that time before disbursement of hand loan, both the partners demanded four singed blank cheques from the accused and a signed blank stamp paper of Rs. 100/- as security documents. Accordingly the accused gave four signed blank cheques bearing numbers 198394, 198395, 198398, 198399 drawn on Bank of Baroda, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore. Ex-P1 bears cheque No. 198398 and Ex-P2 198399. It is further stated in Ex-D1 notice that after taking loan in the year 2003, he repaid the entire loan amount with interest. At that time also, the aforesaid cheques were retained as security document as before. Even second time also, he repaid the loan by way of cash earlier and later on by cheques and cleared it by the end of August 2007. In para-4 of Ex.D1 he has given in detail the amount paid by him on different dates by issuance of 16 cheques in the name of partners of the firm. Further it is stated in Ex-D1 that after clearing the entire loan, the accused demanded back his documents submitted to the Syndicate Finance Corporation of the complainant and one Basavaraj. He was made to come to the office for good number of times and was told ultimately that those documents are with other partners and later on he was told that they are misplaced somewhere. Thus from Ex-D1, one thing is evident that at an undisputed period of time, the accused did give four signed blank cheques to the Syndicate Finance Corporation as security while obtaining the loan as desired by both the partners. It is not as if the accused has taken his defence only when the cheques were presented for encashment or for that matter in reply to a demand notice by the complainant. If we go through the contents of Ex-D3, notice dated 6.6.2008 issued by the complainant to the accused, it is stated in para 3 that the accused approached and borrowed a hand loan of Rs. 6.00 lakh during March 2006 to meet family necessities. Therefore the complainant is not clear when exactly he alleged to have advanced loan amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs to the accused. In the complaint, he states that the loan was advanced in the month of January 2006 whereas in Ex-D3 notice, it is stated that the loan was advanced in the month of March 2006. Further it is the case of the complainant that he advanced hand loan of Rs. 6.00 lakhs to the accused and out of that the accused repaid Rs. 88,000/- to the complainant by account payee cheque and to repay remaining amount of Rs. 5,12,000/-, the accused said to have issued two cheques for Rs. 2,52,000/- and Rs. 2,62,000/- dated 13.3.2008. If the accused repaid Rs. 88,000/- by account payee cheque to the complainant, nothing prevented the complainant from producing his bank pass book or from examining bank official. According to the complainant, he advanced loan in the month of January 2006 and the accused issued cheque on 13.2.2008 towards repayment nearly after two years. No prudent person would advance such a huge amount of loan without charging interest unless they are close relatives or friends. Moreover, the complainant is one of the partners of the firm M/s. Syndicate Finance Corporation dealing in finance. Definitely he would not lend huge money without charging interest. It is equally true that no person, much less, a prudent person would lend a huge amount of Rs. 6.00 lakh to an unemployed person without any tangible security or surety or without obtaining the security documents. The complainant is one of the partners of the firm and one Basavaraj is another partner of the firm. When the partnership firm M/s. Syndicate Finance Corporation is engaged in finance business, it is unlikely that the partner in his individual capacity would also lend money and do parallel business. It is borne out from Exs. D2 and D3 the notices issued by Firm and the complainant respectively to the accused that the accused had approached M/s. Syndicate Finance Corporation on earlier occasion and had obtained loan. In that case approaching the partner in his individual capacity for the loan is highly improbable. When the complainant is one of the partners of M/s. Syndicate Finance Corporation, a firm dealing in finance business, definitely the Corporation must have maintained the documents for having advanced loan to various persons. There was no difficulty for the complainant being one of the partners from producing the documents pertaining to the transactions between the accused and the Firm. The complainant while doing parallel finance business in his individual capacity is expected to maintain the records separately. The very fact that he has not maintained the records of the loan said to have been advanced to the accused without charging interest for a period of two years creates a serious doubt as to the advancement of the loan to the accused. It appears to be somewhat strange and unusual that towards the repayment of the remaining loan amount of Rs. 5,12,000/-, a person would issue two different cheques of same date. The accused being an unemployed B.E. graduate, issuing two different cheque for a total sum of Rs. 5,12,000/- also appears to be somewhat strange and cannot be imagined. In money matters court expects more transparency. Thus from all these facts and circ

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

umstances discussed and narrated above, I have no hesitation in holding that the complainant failed to prove the existence of debt of Rs. 5,12,000/-. On the other hand, accused has been able to probablise his defence and discharge the burden cast upon him that the cheque were not issued towards the discharge of legally recoverable debt. I have every reason to accept the defence taken by the accused that out of four cheques that were obtained by the Corporation as security at the time of advancement of the loan, two cheques have been misused by the complainant though the accused has fully discharged the loan taken by him from Syndicate Finance Corporation of which the complainant is one of the partners. Thus the learned Magistrate appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and came to the right conclusion that the complainant failed to establish the charge levelled against the accused. On my re-appreciation of evidence, I am in full agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate. There is no substance in the appeal. 6. Hence, I pass the following order:- The appeal is dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

14-07-2020 Radhakrishna Reddy & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
10-07-2020 M/s. Sai Srinivasa Properties & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represent by its Director N. Vivekananda Reddy Versus Krishnappa & Others High Court of Karnataka
06-07-2020 M/s. Srini Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Red. by its Managing Director, Tera Chinnappa Reddy Versus Union of India, rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
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
03-06-2020 Merugu Narsaiah @ Narsimha Reddy & Others Versus The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-05-2020 V.K. Dayanand & Others Versus Kitty @ Krishna Reddy & Others High Court of Karnataka
07-04-2020 B. Ravi Kumar Reddy & Another Versus Bhagyamma & Others High Court of Karnataka
16-03-2020 Y. Bhikshalu Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary Irrigation & CAD Department, Velagapudi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
16-03-2020 N. Amit Reddy & Another Versus Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-03-2020 Manjunatha Reddy Versus State, Represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thally Police Station, Krishnagiri High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Captain Paida Janardhana Reddy (died) per LRs P. Malathi & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Commissioner & Inspector General, Registration & Stamps Department High Court of Andhra Pradesh
04-03-2020 B. Subha Reddy Versus S.S. Organics Ltd. & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
02-03-2020 Birru Prathap Reddy & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
02-03-2020 V. Chakradhar Reddy & Others Versus G. Raveen Kumar & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-02-2020 SPI Cinemas Private Limited, Represented by its Director, K. Niranjan Reddy Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Royapettah Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 C. Doddanarayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs. & Others Versus C. Jayarama Reddy (Dead) By Lrs. & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 U. Kanchan @ Kanchan Kumari & Others V/S S. Sani Kommu Rami Reddy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-02-2020 Bheemreddy Malla Reddy Versus The State of Telangana & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-02-2020 Jai Bharathi Constructions Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Surender Reddy, Telangana Versus The Executive Director (Signal Projects) Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 P. Narayana Reddy Versus C.N. Ramesh High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Mohammed Hyder Khan Versus K. Rami Reddy High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-02-2020 N. Anji Reddy and Others. V/S The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
30-01-2020 Y.V. Pratap Reddy Versus Union of India & Others National Green Tribunal Southern Zone Chennai
30-01-2020 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Yadagirigutta Bus Depot, Nalgonda District Versus M.N. Reddy & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-01-2020 R. Venkataswamy Reddy & Others Versus Shantha Abraham & Others High Court of Karnataka
24-01-2020 N. Parvathi Reddy Versus The State of Telangana & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-01-2020 Lilngala Narender Reddy, KPHB Colony & Another Versus The State of A.P., Rep PP., HYD, Through SHO P.S., Kukatpally High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-01-2020 A. Saraswathamm Versus Y. Venkata Narayana Reddy High Court of Andhra Pradesh
24-01-2020 P.V. Reddy V/S State rep. through The Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-01-2020 Jatanam Yadaiah Versus Venkata Rami Reddy, IAS High Court of for the State of Telangana
23-01-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus S. Ram Reddy & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-01-2020 Kammagari Madhava Reddy Versus The State of AP rep by its PP Hyd High Court of for the State of Telangana
22-01-2020 The National Insurance Company Limited, Secbad Versus Rajagiri Hanma Reddy & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-01-2020 Viswasani India Developers Private Limited Versus Gonapati Parameshwar Reddy High Court of Andhra Pradesh
21-01-2020 Somireddy Chandra Mohan Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
21-01-2020 Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 M/s. Harinath Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, G. Kaspa Reddy & Others Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-01-2020 Govardhan Reddy Katireddy, Hyderabad Versus M/s Aliens Developers Private Limited Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
17-01-2020 M. Ravindranath Reddy Versus G. Kishan & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
17-01-2020 M. Ravindranath Reddy V/S G. Kishan and Others. NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (NEW DELHI)
10-01-2020 N. Hrudayananda Reddy Versus State Inspector Of Police, ACB Hyderabad Range High Court of Andhra Pradesh
10-01-2020 C. Venugopal Reddy Versus The State of A.P. Rep By Its P.P & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-01-2020 Rajareddy Versus R. Krishna Reddy (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Koovam Krishna Reddy & Others Versus M. Arumugam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 K. Sridhar Reddy V/S State Bank of India and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
02-01-2020 M. Balakrishna Reddy, IFS, Shillong Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests & Climate Change, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
21-12-2019 J.C. Uma Reddy V/S State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-12-2019 C. Shivakumar Reddy Versus Dena Bank & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
16-12-2019 Konda Hanuma Reddy @ Peda Hanuma Redd Versus Vuyyuru Malleswari & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-12-2019 Kitchannagari Sarveshwara Reddy Versus M/s RHC Ventures Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Telangana & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
12-12-2019 P. Vittal Reddy & Others Versus Dena Bank & Another Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata
11-12-2019 Kasireddy Ashok Kumar Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
10-12-2019 The Chief Engineer (Construction), Gauge Conversion, Southern Railway, Chennai & Another Versus Sri Swarna & Co., Represented by its Managing Partner, B. Venugopal Reddy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-12-2019 Vodagandla Sudhakar Reddy Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-12-2019 State of Telangana Versus Sri Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 K. Kishan Reddy Versus The State, ACB through Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-12-2019 Keshav Reddy & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-12-2019 M. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy Versus State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-11-2019 R. Venkataramana Reddy Versus R. Radha Krishna Reddy & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-11-2019 Thummala Narasimha Reddy Versus State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
15-11-2019 Vamsi Labs Private Limited Through its Director – Pratap Reddy Versus Alpine Laboratories Proprietor – A.A. Sonandkar High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-11-2019 Mallidi Koteswara Reddy Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & The State of Andhra Pradesh & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-11-2019 Bijili School of Nursing, rep. by its Correspondent, B. Ravinder Reddy Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (KI) Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-11-2019 S. Ravichandran & Others Versus Himayam Engineers & Builders, Represented by its Proprietor, P.Ramana Reddy, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-11-2019 M/s. Indu Projects Limited, rep. by its Chief Operating Officer, B.V. Bhaskar Reddy Versus Telangana Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, rep. by its Chairman, Commissionerate of Industries, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-11-2019 Yerramreddy Venkata Suresh Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary School Education Seceretariat Buildings Velagapudi at Amaravathi Guntur District High Court of Andhra Pradesh
07-11-2019 Sundeep Reddy Tirumala Reddy Versus Dondeti Anusha Reddy High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-11-2019 Venkatesh Reddy Versus Bengaluru Development Authority Kumara Park West High Court of Karnataka
02-11-2019 Machireddy Ravi Kumar Reddy Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperative Department Secretariat, Hyderabad High Court of Andhra Pradesh
29-10-2019 P. Jayapal Reddy Versus Balusupati Amarnadh & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-10-2019 R. Srinivas Versus B. Sambashiva Reddy High Court of Karnataka
23-10-2019 A. Padmanabha Reddy Guntur & Others Versus State of AP Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of AP Hyderabad & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
22-10-2019 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Assistant Secretary(Legal) Co (Legal)Cell, New Delhi Versus Dr. Manjunath Reddy National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-10-2019 Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Galli Janardhan Reddy High Court of Karnataka
17-10-2019 Dodla Eshwer Reddy Versus The State Election Commissioner, State Election Commission, Ac Guards, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-10-2019 E.V. Perumal Samy Reddy Versus M.K. Seetharama Mudaliar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-10-2019 M/s. Sri Sai Constructions, Rep. By Its Managing Director M. Yadagiri Reddy & Another Versus Thambala Upender National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-10-2019 Pundru Mohan Reddy Versus LIC of India & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
04-10-2019 Devulapalli Dwarakanatha Reddy & Another Versus M/s. Sritha Constructions (P) Limited, Rep. by its Director, K. Sreenivasulu Reddy, Perungudi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2019 Seelam Venkata Reddy @ Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
01-10-2019 Yennamreddy Rama Subba Reddy Versus Yennamreddy Sekhar Reddy High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-09-2019 G.R.K. Reddy Versus ICICI Bank Limited & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
30-09-2019 B. Krishna Reddy Versus Syed Hafeez (Died) Per Lr. Smt. Naseema Begum & Another Supreme Court of India
28-09-2019 P. Lakshmi Reddy Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
25-09-2019 Gundala Srinu Srinaiah Versus V. Madhava Reddy High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-09-2019 Budepaka Ramana & Another Versus V. Madhava Reddy & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-09-2019 Kodavaluru Damodhar Reddy Bhaktavastala Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-09-2019 K.V. Ramana Reddy Versus Deputy Inspector General of Police High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-09-2019 Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others Versus Central Public Works Department Engineer Association, Represented by its Zonal Secretary, A. Mallikarjun Reddy & Others High Court of Karnataka
17-09-2019 B.M. Keshavappa Versus K.M. Jayarama Reddy High Court of Karnataka
16-09-2019 M. Harish Reddy @ Harish Versus Assistant Commissioner Kolar Sub-Division High Court of Karnataka
13-09-2019 The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Services Department, Bengaluru Others Versus N. Krishna Reddy, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
13-09-2019 N. Raghav Reddy Versus Ashok Giri High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-09-2019 Future Builders Co-Op Society Rep., by its President Mufaddal Javawala Versus S. Malla Reddy & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
13-09-2019 B.V. Malla Reddy Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
06-09-2019 The Managing Director, KSRTC Ltd., Bengaluru Versus S. Muralidhar Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2019 IL&FS Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Formerly Maytas Infra Ltd., Represented by Prabhakar Reddy Versus Government of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2019 A. Archana Versus D. Uma Maheswara Reddy High Court of Andhra Pradesh
03-09-2019 Sapthagiri Residents Welfare Association Rep. By Its Sercretary. B. Chandrasekhara Reddy Versus M/s. Sri Constructions, By Its Managing Partnr G Prasad & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2019 M/s. N. Ramachandra Reddy Versus The State of Telangana & Others Supreme Court of India