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



Libra Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v/s Pushpa Devi


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

Company & Directors' Information:- B S AND SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92419MH1946PTC004912

Company & Directors' Information:- LIBRA BUS SERVICE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U60210PB1973PTC003336

Company & Directors' Information:- LIBRA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51909DL1996PTC082555

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICE CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U93090KL1946PLC001075

    CM. Nos. 25312-13 of 2006 and F.A.O. No. 273 of 2003

    Decided On, 09 September 2008

    At, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

    For the Appearing Parties: Deepak Suri, Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Mahesh Grover, J.

(1) The appellant, 101 of 22.10.1998. Libra Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., the owner of the bus bearing registration No. PB 13-C 2. On 7.9.2005, a learned single Judge 4667 which was involved in a motor vehicle of this court passed the following order in accident occurred on 12.9.1998 causing the appeal: death of one Raj Kumar filed an appeal against common award dated 1.3.2002

"Counsel for both the parties are agreed passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that so far as claimants are concerned, Sangrur (for short, 'the Tribunal') in qua them order passed regarding pay- M.A.C. Case Nos. 72 of 25.11.1998 and of compensation be deemed to have become final and be not disturbed to that extent. Appellant filed this appeal against the award dated 1.3.2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (in short 'the Tribunal') vide which compensation amount of Rs. 2,56,000 was granted in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, on account of death of Raj Kumar. The Tribunal by giving finding that driver employed by the appellant was not having a valid driving licence, has fastened liability upon the appellant. It has been ordered that amount be first paid by the insurance company and then the insurance company be at liberty to recover the same from the owner/appellant. Counsel for the appellant states that on a very sketchy evidence led by insurance company, a finding has been given that the respondent No. 6 was not possessing a valid driving licence when accident had taken place. By referring to ratio of judgment in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), counsel states that it was incumbent upon insurance company, to prove further that the insured was guilty of wilful breach of conditions of insurance policy. Counsel further states that to the same effect is ratio of judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC). Confronting with this situation Mr. Pabbi, very fairly states that matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case, and also ratio of judgments, referred to above, this appeal is allowed, award qua the claimants is maintained, however, to decide as to who is responsible for making the payment, matter is remitted to the Tribunal, to decide it afresh on the point as to whether the insured has committed any wilful breach of conditions of insurance policy or not. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3.10.2005. The Tribunal need not to issue any notice of pending litigation to the claimants."

(2) Thereafter, the Tribunal disposed of the matter on 18.9.2006 and re-determined the issue which was entrusted to it regarding the insured (appellant) having committed wilful breach of conditions of insurance policy.

(3) In its order dated 18.9.2006, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that appellant had produced fake documents Exhs. C1 and C2 as also the entries of the register were fabricated. The driving licence was also held to be fake and it was held that the appellant had committed a wilful breach of the insurance policy. Paras 15 and 16 of the above order are reproduced below:

"(15) Thus, taking into consideration the fact that the owner of the bus produced fake documents, Exhs. C1 and C2, on the file as well as the entry in the register shows that something has been removed from the top of the entry which is meant for pasting of photograph and address of respondent No. 1 is not the same as find mention in the entry as well as it is not the case of respondent No. 1 that he got ever issued the driving licence from Allahabad, it cannot be said from these documents as well as from the report, Exh. R4/A, which was prepared from the entries in the register, the respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence. As stated, when the insured, i.e., respondent No. 2 is guilty of producing fake documents in the court, the onus placed on the insurer that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise due care at the time of employing the driver, stands discharged. (16) As such the insured has committed a wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy, i.e., employing the driver having no driving licence and has not taken reasonable care at the time of employing the driver and, as such, is liable to make the payment to the insurance company."

By filing CM. No. 25312-13-CII of 2006, the appellant has now sought to place on record its objections against the above reproduced findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal.

(4) Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the testimony of the Manager, who had also tendered an affidavit to say that the licence produced by the driver had been verified at the time of employment and that the same had been issued by the authorities at Allahabad. He further contended that this licence, which had been issued from Allahabad has not been denied by Khalid Hussain, who appeared as a witness to testify to the correctness of the licence. He admitted that the letter dated 8.5.2006, Exh. R4, original of which is Exh. R4/A and also admitted to entry in register, Exh. R3, as correct and a perusal thereof shows that Sukhjit Singh was having a valid driving licence, but the dispute is that Sukhjit Singh submitted that he got his licence from Licensing Authority, Fatehgarh Sahib whereas the licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Allahabad.

(5) I have considered the objections raised by the appellant and have perused the record.

(6) The matter was initially remitted back primarily on the question to be determined which was as to whether the insured, i.e., the appellant has committed any wilful breach of conditions of insurance or not.

(7) In Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, 1987 ACJ 411 (SC), the Supreme Court in paras 12 and 14 of the judgment observed as under:

"(12) The defence built on the exclusion clause cannot succeed for three reasons, viz.: (1) On a true interpretation of the relevant clause which interpretation is at peace with the conscience of section 96, the condition excluding driving by a person not duly licensed is not absolute and the promisor is absolved once it is shown that he has done everything in his power to keep, honour and fulfil the promise and he himself is not guilty of a deliberate breach. (2) Even if it is treated as an absolute promise, there is substantial compliance therewith upon an express or implied mandate being given to the licensed driver not to allow the vehicle to be left unattended so that it happens to be driven by an unlicensed driver. (3) The exclusion clause has to be 'read down' in order that it is not at war with the 'main purpose' of the provisions enacted for the protection of victims of accidents so that the promisor is exculpated when he does everything in his power to keep the promise. xxx xxx xxx (14) .. .Unless the insured is at fault and is guilty of a breach the insurer cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the insured and successfully contend that he is exonerated having regard to the fact that the promisor (the insured) committed a breach of his promise. Not when some mishap occurs due to some mischance. When the insured has done everything within his power inasmuch as he has engaged a licensed driver and has placed the vehicle in charge of a licensed driver, with the express or implied mandate to drive himself, it cannot be said that the insured is guilty of any breach. And it is only in case of a breach or a violation of the promise on the part of the insured that insurer can hide under the umbrella of the exclusion clause..."

(8) In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while expressing agreement with the law laid down in Skandia 's case, 1987 ACJ 411 (SC) and other judgments held as under:

"(17) When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with R.T.O.'s, which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus, where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of section 149 (2) (a) (ii). The insurance company would not then be absolved of its liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner-insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured..."

(9) In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), the Apex Court observed that merely because the driving licence is fake or invalid, it will not make any difference as it has to be established that this factor had contributed to the accident.

(10) In the light of the above reproduced law laid down by the Supreme Court, I proceed to examine the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the question that was remitted to it for decision.

(11) A perusal of the objections submitted by appellant shows that an affidavit of its Manager was tendered before Tribunal to state that at the time of offering employment to the driver of the offending vehicle, his licence had been verified, which was issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Allahabad. The Tribunal got recorded the statement of an official of that authority, namely, Khalid Hussain through a Local Commissioner i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

n which he did not dispute the said fact and the entry as it appeared in the register, which is Exh. R3 (Exh. RW4B) and the same shows that Sukhjit Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle, was having a valid driving licence from Allahabad. It was this licence which was checked by the Manager of the appellant company while offering employment to said Sukhjit Singh. (12) Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above- mentioned cases, the appellant had not committed any wilful breach of the insurance policy as due care was taken by it while employing the driver of offending vehicle. (13) Consequently, CM. Nos. 25312-13 of 2006 is allowed, the objections filed by the appellant are taken on record and are accepted, order dated 18.9.2006 of the Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the liability to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants shall be that of the insurance company. (14) This order will be read as part and parcel of order dated 7.9.2005 passed by this court. (15) The appeal is disposed of in above terms. Appeal allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

09-09-2020 Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service, Rep. by its Authorized Representative J. Anjananandan Versus The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai Versus P. Muthian High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
04-09-2020 Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus State Public Service Tribunal Thru.Chairman & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
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
19-08-2020 Venkateshvara Logistics Fleet, Represented by its Authorized Representative Rachya, Hubballi Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bijapur Division, Vijayapur High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
18-08-2020 Goods & Service Tax Network Versus Information Commissioner, Cic & Anr High Court of Delhi
14-08-2020 T.V. Maniyappan & Another Versus Pattanakkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
13-08-2020 P. Balamurugan Versus The Controller of Examinations, The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 Syed Ahmar Ali Hasmi Versus Union Public Service Commission, through Secretary Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
05-08-2020 M/s. Siti Cable Network Ltd. & Another Versus Commissioner of Service Tax & Another Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
04-08-2020 The Managing Committee, (Under Order of Suspension), The Vellathooval Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Represented by Its President Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Office of The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Idukki & Others High Court of Kerala
03-08-2020 Devi Marine Food Export Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director, Abdul Razzak Ganj, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd., Cement Grinding Unit, Kancheepuram Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (South Zonal Bench), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2020 The Karassery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kozhikode, Represented by Its General Manager Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Co-Operative Societies, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
27-07-2020 M/s. Sainath Security Force & Man Power Service, Represented by its Proprietor B.S. Mannur Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Under Secretary, Bangaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
21-07-2020 Branch Manager, Sahara India Dumraon Branch Buxar Bihar Versus Raj Kumari Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-07-2020 Cheriyan Mathew, Member, The Kanakkary Service Cooperative Bank Limited & Others Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Kottayam & Another High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Kamlesh Devi & Others Versus Bhola Nath & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
16-07-2020 Raksha Devi Vedrsus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
14-07-2020 M/s. Sanwaliya Tractor Sales & Service, Rajasthan & Others Versus Bhagwati Devi Bhatt & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-07-2020 Prabhat Ranjan Deo Versus Union Public Service Commission & Others High Court of Delhi
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 Bhagwati Devi Versus Suritram (Dead) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-06-2020 Sri Bhagavathy Dyes & Chemicals, Kochi, Represented by Its Proprietor, B. Ravindranath Versus Alleppey Parcel Service, Alappuzha, Represented by T.T. Kuruvila, Proprietor & Others High Court of Kerala
18-06-2020 Dr. Manoj Kr. Bhagat Versus Masomat Kanchan Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Most. Dhanwanti Devi & Others Versus Sanjharo Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-06-2020 Samri Devi Shaw Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus Aasha Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Munni Devi & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-06-2020 Sheelender Kumar Gupta & Another Versus Mahaviri Devi (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. High Court of Delhi
11-06-2020 Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Versus State by Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
08-06-2020 Geeta Devi Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-06-2020 The Karnataka Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary Versus Dr. S.S. Madhukeshwara & Another High Court of Karnataka
02-06-2020 Pappu Ram Jat Versus Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
02-06-2020 Renu Devi & Another Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
28-05-2020 Most. Ahilya Devi @ Ahilya Devi Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
28-05-2020 Manju Devi Versus Board of Revenue Allahabad & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
22-05-2020 Dhiraj Milind Dhurve Versus Union Public Service Commission & Another High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service, Patna Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Patna & 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
20-05-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Ernakulam Versus M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Kochi Refinery, Ambalamugal, Represented by The Chief Finance Manager High Court of Kerala
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 Gopi Chand Versus Geeta Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
15-04-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Mohani Devi & Another Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 Shyama Devi Versus Manju Shukla & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
24-03-2020 Babu Lal & Others Versus Para Devi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
23-03-2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others Versus Megha Sharma & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
23-03-2020 Damyanti Devi Versus Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-03-2020 Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank Versus Achhari Devi & Others Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
19-03-2020 Satya Devi Versus State of HP & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
19-03-2020 Uma Devi Versus The State Govt of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Others Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
18-03-2020 Surendra Kumar Versus Phulwanti Devi High Court of Rajasthan
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
17-03-2020 P.B. Biju Versus The Managing Committee of The Vayyattupuzha Service Co-Operative Bank, Ltd No. Q 354, Represented by Its President, Pathanamthitta District & Others High Court of Kerala
16-03-2020 Khushboo Devi Versus Indranil Ray Chowdhury & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
10-03-2020 G. Uma Devi & Another Versus M. Krishnamurthy Reddiar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Versus Jayanti Devi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-03-2020 M/s Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. Versus S. Ambika Devi & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Sakuntala Devi Versus Dr. Md. Mumtaz Alam & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 M. Vanaja Versus M. Sarla Devi (Dead) Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Poonam Devi & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Tulsa Devi Nirola & Others Versus Radha Nirola & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Ambika Singh (since deceased) represented by legal representatives & Others Versus Mosomat Sohagi Devi (since deceased) represented by her legal heirs & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-03-2020 Saraswati Devi Versus Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad & Others High Court of Jharkhand
03-03-2020 Md. Waheed V/S The Telangana State Public Service Commission In The High Court Of State Of Telangana
28-02-2020 Devi & Another Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Sandhya Devi @ Sandhya Goyal Versus State High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 High Court of Himachal Pradesh Versus Sheela Devi (Deceased) High Court of Himachal Pradesh
28-02-2020 M/s. Padmavathi Hospitality & Facilities Management Services, Rep. by its Partner & Authorized Representative Pradeep Kanumuri & Another V/S The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Karmi Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Tvl. Trust Metal, Rep. by its Proprietrix Bhagwanti Devi Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT), Moore Market (South) Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 Devi Versus Narayanan @ Alagappan & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-02-2020 J. Anbazhagan Versus The Chairman The Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 N.A. Eswaramurthi Versus Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep.by its Member Secretary, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram V/S P. Priya And Others High Court of Kerala
25-02-2020 Shyam Sundar Dhal Versus Sharada Devi Bubna & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-02-2020 P.H. Thajudeen Versus Secretary, Pathanamthitta Service Co-op: Bank Ltd., Near Govt. Hospital, Pathanamthitta & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
21-02-2020 CP Cell, Directorate General Ordnance Service, Informant Master General of Ordnance Service, CP Cell/OS Dte, New Delhi V/S M/s AVR Enterprises, Kanpur & Another Competition Commission of India
19-02-2020 M/s. Millions Fashion, Chennai Versus The Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Vidya Devarajan & Another Versus The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Golkonda Uma Devi Versus Enti Manjula & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-02-2020 ITC Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Constituted Attorney, V.M. Rajasekharan Versus Shree Devi Match Industries, Gudiyattam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Principal Commissioner Goods & Service Tax Delhi South Versus Premium Real Estate Developers High Court of Delhi
18-02-2020 Sujatha Devi Akondi & Others Versus M/s. Safeway InfraRep By Its Managing Partner Ivsn Raju, Hyderabad & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhavnagar Versus M/s. Pipavav Shipyard Limited (100 Percent Eou) High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
14-02-2020 A. Babu Prasanth V/S The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Toad, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Mala Devi Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Medical & Health Lko. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-02-2020 The Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by The Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus P.K. Leelamani & Others High Court of Kerala
11-02-2020 Ratna Devi Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-02-2020 Ambalal V. Patel Versus Central Medical Service Society Vishwa Yuva Kendra & Others Competition Commission of India