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



Lokesh Bharti v/s Harish Chander ( Deceased) through his LRS & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- BHARTI CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U61200PN2014PTC151056

Company & Directors' Information:- HARISH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29299MH1959PTC011457

Company & Directors' Information:- HARISH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U45201RJ1995PTC010374

    RFA. No. 553 of 2018

    Decided On, 20 July 2018

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

    For the Appellant: Madan Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: -----------



Judgment Text

Oral:

C.M. Appl. No. 28388/2018 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No.553/2018 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 28195/2018 (for stay) & 28196/2018 (for additional evidence)

2. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant no. 2 in the suit impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 27.3.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for possession, injunction and mesne profits filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 against the appellant/defendant no. 2 and respondent no. 5/defendant no.1. The suit property is one bearing no. 166-B, part of Khasra No. 24/25, 100 sq. yards, Village Ranhola, now known as Rishal Garden, Najafgarh, Nangloi Road, New Delhi.

3. Original plaintiff in the suit Sh. Harish Chander (since expired and his now represented by respondents no.1 to 4 as his legal heirs), was the father-in-law of the respondent no.5/defendant no. 1 in the suit. Appellant/Defendant no. 2 in the suit is the brother of respondent no.5/defendant no. 1. By the suit the plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property and set up a cause of action that in term of the documents executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1,being the General Power of Attorney, Will, Gift Deed and Possession Letter dated 23.10.2002, the plaintiff did not transfer the suit property to the respondent no.5/defendant no. 1. Appellant /Defendant no. 2 in the suit being the brother of respondent no.5/defendant no. 1 was originally not a party to the suit but was added on his application as the defendant no.2 in the suit because the appellant/defendant no. 2 pleaded that by the documentation dated 24.6.2009 (being the Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Will, Possession Letter, etc.), rights in the suit property were transferred by respondent no. 5/defendant no.1 to appellant/defendant no. 2.

4. The facts of the case are that admittedly the original plaintiff Sh. Harish Chander was the owner of the suit property. The daughter of the plaintiff Smt. Rekha @ Radhika was married to the respondent no. 5/defendant no.1 on 17.2.2002. Earlier there was a roka ceremony of the daughter of the plaintiff with respondent no. 5/ defendant no. 1 on 7.4.2001. Since the respondent no.5/defendant no. 1 at the time of matrimony was living in a very small accommodation on a plot of 25 sq. yards, the plaintiff for residence of respondent no.5/defendant no.1 and his family purchased the suit plot from the erstwhile owner one Sh. Jaiveer Singh on 3.7.2001 by means of usual documentation being the Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter, etc. As per the plaint the suit property was thereafter constructed by the plaintiff and for which he had used the help of respondent no. 5/defendant no. 1. Plaintiff pleaded that he had paid an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 1 by means of cheques for construction and also in addition a sum of Rs.85,000/- in cash. The further case in the plaint was that since respondent no. 5/defendant no. 1 pressurized the plaintiff, therefore to keep peace in the family and his own daughter happy, with respect to the suit property, the plaintiff executed the General Power of Attorney, Will, Possession Letter and Gift Deed on 23.10.2002 in favour of the respondent no.1/defendant no. 1. The matrimonial relationship between the plaintiff’s daughter and the respondent no. 5/ defendant no. 1 did not work out and a consent decree of divorce was obtained from the concerned Court 6.10.2007. The plaintiff cancelled the General Power of Attorney and Will dated 23.10.2002 vide Cancellation Deed dated 9.6.2009. Hence the subject suit was filed seeking possession and mesne profits qua the suit property.

5. Respondent no.5/Defendant no. 1 contested the suit and pleaded that he had purchased the suit property from the plaintiff by means of the subject documentation dated 23.10.2002 by paying a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff and the respondent no.5/defendant no. 1 had entered into a Rent Agreement on 15.3.2002. Suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed. In the written statement of appellant/defendant no. 2, besides supporting respondent no.5/defendant no. 1, it was pleaded that the appellant/defendant no. 2 had purchased the suit property in terms of documentation dated 16.4.2009/24.6.2009.

6. After pleadings were complete, the trial court framed the following issues:-

'1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession of the suit property? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as prayed for? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? OPP.

5. Relief.'

6. Evidence was thereafter led by the parties and these aspects are recorded in paragraphs 19-26 of the impugned judgment and these paragraphs read as under:-

'PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:

19. Plaintiff has examined 4 witnesses in his evidence. Initially, the plaintiff filed his affidavit in evidence, who was also examined in chief but due to his death, he was not subject to cross examination, therefore, his evidence cannot be read.

20. After the death of plaintiff, his son Gunjan Kumar examined himself as PW1. PW2 Danveer Sharma, UDC from the office of Sub Registrar, PW3 Mukesh Kumar, Clerk from Punjab National Bank, Branch West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and PW4 Rajesh Kumar, Clerk from Corporation Bank.

21. PW1 Gunjan Kumar has filed his affidavit in evidence in which he has reiterated and reaffirmed the same facts as stated in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents:-

(a) Mark A, B and C - GPA, Agreement to sell and receipt, respectively, in favour of plaintiff (since deceased) all dated 13.07.2001;

(b) Mark D GPA dated 23.10.2002 in favour of defendant no.1 executed by plaintiff;

(c) PW1/2 and PW1/3 cancellation deed dated 09.06.2009 and WILL, respectively;

(d) PW1/4 certified copy of divorce petition of plaintiff's daughter;

(e) Ex.PW1/5 statements of both the parties recorded in divorce petition;

(f) PW1/6 decree sheet u/s 13 B(2) of HMA;

(g) PW1/7 notice dated 9.6.2009, sent by plaintiff to defendant;

(h) Ex.PW1/8 proof of service of the notice;

(i) Ex.PW1/9 publication in the newspaper dated 19.6.2009;

(j) PW1/10 notice dated 4.7.2009 sent to defendant no.1;

(k) Ex.PW1/11 proof of said notice;

(l) Ex.PW1/12 site plan of the suit property;

(m) Ex.PW1/13 marriage card of plaintiff's daughter and defendant no.1.

22. While tendering the affidavit by PW1, certain objections were raised by defendants counsel, therefore, the documents Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/2 were given mark PX3 and PX2. Similarly, Ex.PW1/12 was given mark as PX12. PW1/10 was also given mark as PX10 and PW1/11 was marked as PX11.

23. PW2 has proved the summoned record i.e. cancellation deed dated 09.06.2009 of GPA and WILL.

24. PW3 had proved the statement of account of plaintiff for the period 1.1.2001 to 31.12.2002.

25. PW4 is Rajesh Kumar from Cooperation Bank. He has proved the summoned record i.e. statement of account of defendant no.1 for the period 1.10.2007 to 30.11.2007.

DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE:

26. Defendant no.1 has examined only himself in his evidence. He has filed his affidavit in evidence in which he has reiterated and reaffirmed the same facts as stated by him in the written statement. He has relied upon the following documents:-

(a) Ex.D1W1/A Deed of gift dated 23.10.2002

(b) Ex.D1W1/B Deed of WILL dated 23.10.2002

(c) Ex.D1W1/C Possession letter

(d) Ex. D1W1/C1 affidavit dated 23.10.2002

(e) Ex. D1W1/D agreement to sell and purchase dated 16.04.2009.

(f) Ex.D1W1/E Receipt dated 16.04.2009

(g) Ex.D1W1/F GPA dated 24.06.2009

(h) Ex.D1W1/G agreement to sell dated 24.6.2009

(i) Ex.D1W1/H affidavit dated 24.6.2009

(j) Ex.D1W1/I receipt dated 24.6.2009

(k) Ex.D1W1/J possession letter dated 24.6.2009

(l) Ex.D1W1/K WILL dated 24.6.2009

(m) Ex.D1W1/L rent agreement dated 15.03.2002, which was deexhibited and marked as mark X.'

7. To the extent that the trial court had held that the alleged Gift Deed dated 23.10.2002 said to have been executed by the erstwhile plaintiff in favour of defendant no. 1 is not a legally valid document as neither the Gift Deed is registered and nor is the same witnessed as required by law, and therefore the requirements of a valid Gift Deed specified under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were not satisfied, counsel for the appellant/defendant no.2 could not and did not raise any argument. The finding of the trial court in this regard in any case being factually and legally correct, since the gift deed is neither registered nor witnessed as required under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Gift Deed dated 23.10.2002 could not have transferred the ownership rights in the suit property to the respondent no. 5/defendant no.1.

8(i). The only issue now to be examined is as to whether the General Power of Attorney and the Will dated 23.10.2002 executed by the erstwhile plaintiff in favour of the respondent no.5/defendant no.1 transferred rights in the suit property. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant no.2 argued by placing reliance upon the clause of the General Power of Attorney dated 23.10.2002 as per which General Power of Attorney is irrevocable, and accordingly it is argued that the respondent no.5/defendant no.1 got ownership rights in the suit property by virtue of this General Power of Attorney.

8(ii). I cannot agree with the argument urged on behalf of the appellant that the General Power of Attorney dated 23.10.2002 is irrevocable inasmuch as every Power of Attorney is revocable unless the Power of Attorney is given for consideration. This is so specified in Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Neither in the subject power of attorney there is any mention of payment of consideration by the respondent no.5/ defendant no. 1 to the erstwhile plaintiff, and nor has this passing of alleged consideration has been proved by the defendants in the suit and as against the plaintiffs. At the cost of repetition, no amount of moneys have been proved to have been transferred by the respondent no.5/defendant no. 1 to the erstwhile plaintiff under the documentation dated 23.10.2002. Therefore once there is no consideration which passed under the General Power of Attorney dated 23.10.2002, therefore the General Power of Attorney cannot be irrevocable merely because it is so mentioned in the General Power of Attorney in asmuch as a power of attorney as per Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act only becomes irrevocable if it is executed for consideration which passes. The General Power of Attorney was therefore validly cancelled by the plaintiff in terms of the Cancellation Deed dated 9.6.2009/Ex.PW1/2 as the General Power of Attorney was irrevocable but revocable.

9. So far as the Will is concerned, admittedly the Will has been revoked by the Cancellation Deed dated 9.6.2009/Ex.PW1/2 during the lifetime of the original plaintiff, and since a Will can always be revoked by the executant before his death, therefore, the respondent no.5/ defendant no. 1 in the suit could not have claimed ownership rights in the suit property in terms of the Will dated 23.10.2002.

10. I may note that the documentation executed in favour of the erstwhile plaintiff by the original owner Sh. Jaiveer Singh are dated 3.7.2001, i.e prior to the amending of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act w.e.f 24.9.2001 by Act 48 of 2001, and therefore such documentation did confer rights in the nature of ownership rights, though not strictly an owner, to the plaintiff in the suit. The documentation however executed by the erstwhile plaintiff in favour of the respondent no.5/defendant no.1 are subsequent to the amendment of Transfer of Property Act and the related provisions of Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908 by Act 48 of 2001, and therefore the unregistered documenta

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

tion dated 23.10.2002 said to have been executed by the erstwhile plaintiff in favour of the respondent no.5/defendant no.1 were in any case beyond the sanction of law. Since respondent no.5/defendant no.1 was not the owner, hence the respondent no.5/defendant no.1 could not have validly transferred any rights in the suit property to the appellant /defendant no.2, and in any case the documents in favour of the appellant/defendant no.2 again being of the year 2009 i.e. post the Act 48 of 2001, and these documents are unregistered documents, these documents in themselves also, without anything further, did not create any rights in the suit property in favour of the appellant/defendant no.2. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant no.2 argued that trial court has wrongly awarded a very high rate of mesne profits against the defendants in the suit, being the appellant and the respondent no.5, and which argument prima facie seemed to have merit, however, in the peculiar facts of this case, and once trial court has taken judicial notice of the increase of rent and thus of mesne profits, in the facts of the present case, I would not like to interfere with the findings with respect to the mesne profits given under issue no.2 at paragraph 41 of the impugned judgment. 12. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

23-03-2020 Bharti Khanna Versus State High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Jiwat Ram Versus M/s. Bharti Telenet Limited & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
11-03-2020 Harish Vasudevan Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
02-03-2020 M/s. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., Doddaanekundi, Bangalore Versus Narasimman & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 Harish Jain Versus Haveli Restaurant & Resorts Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Jalandhar (Punjab) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
21-02-2020 Seema & Another Versus Harish & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-02-2020 Harish Chandra Singh Versus State of M.P. Through State House Officer, Police Station Ratlam & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
07-02-2020 Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Priya Paul & Another Supreme Court of India
04-02-2020 Shubhash Kumar Sharma Versus Harish Chander Rawal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-01-2020 Next Radio Limited, Mumbai & Others V/S Prasar Bharti And Others Competition Commission of India
20-01-2020 Harish Kobrekar V/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd High Court of Karnataka
20-01-2020 Akhilesh Bharti Versus State High Court of Delhi
17-01-2020 Harish Taneja Versus Nidhi High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-01-2020 Adesh Prakashchand Jain (Borudiya) Versus Harish Punamchand Une & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
06-01-2020 Harish Dayani Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh
16-12-2019 Harish C. Brahmbhatt & Others Versus Sashi Shankar & Others Supreme Court of India
11-12-2019 Sunil Bharti Mittal & Others Versus N. Naresh Kumar & Another High Court of Karnataka
11-12-2019 Sterlite Technologies Limited Rep by Chief Manager K. Sundar & Another Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep by Managing Director, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 Harish Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
18-11-2019 T.R. Harish & Others Versus The State of Karnataka by Hanumanthanagar Police, Bengaluru City Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
07-11-2019 M/s. Shaf Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. Versus Doordarshan - A Constituent of Prasar Bharti & Another Supreme Court of India
23-10-2019 Harish Dahiya @ Harish & Another Versus State of Punjab & Others Supreme Court of India
23-10-2019 Harish V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk Range, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-10-2019 Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai Versus Harish Lamba of Bombay, Indian Inhabitant & Others Supreme Court of India
17-10-2019 V. Girijamma & Others Versus T.K. Harish & Another High Court of Karnataka
19-09-2019 Ramji Bharti Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-09-2019 M. Harish Reddy @ Harish Versus Assistant Commissioner Kolar Sub-Division High Court of Karnataka
04-09-2019 Manager, Geeta Bal Bharti Sr. Sec. School & Another Versus Ramesh Chander Dubey & Another High Court of Delhi
04-09-2019 Santosh Kumar Versus M/s. Bharti Infratel Limited & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-08-2019 M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Madhya Pradesh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-08-2019 Bharti Airtel Limited & Another Versus Maharashtra Information Technology Corporation Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-08-2019 Bharti Axe General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Raj Kumar Bajaj National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-07-2019 Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Alka & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
25-07-2019 Naval Dey Bharti Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-07-2019 Harish & Others Versus President Grama Panchayath, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
25-07-2019 Seva Bharti Matruchhaya Versus xxx xxx xxx xxx High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-07-2019 Dish TV India Ltd. Versus Prasar Bharti High Court of Delhi
21-06-2019 Harish Puri & Another Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
21-06-2019 Akhilesh Kumar Singh Versus Bharti Airtel Limited & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-05-2019 Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Citi Mall Developers Private Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-05-2019 Bharti Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
09-05-2019 All India Institute of Medical Sciences Versus Harish Kumar Godhwal & Another High Court of Uttarakhand
02-05-2019 Bharti Airtel Limited Versus Sajjala Sandeep Reddy Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
29-04-2019 Anil Verma Versus Harish Kumar High Court of Himachal Pradesh
22-04-2019 Harish Chawla, Sunny Mohan Lakhiani & Others Versus Puri Construction Private Limited & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-04-2019 Harish Chandra Versus Krishna Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-04-2019 Harish Kumar Chouhan & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
15-04-2019 Ravi Bharti Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
10-04-2019 Harish Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka
05-04-2019 T.R. Harish & Others Versus State of Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-04-2019 G. Ramesh Versus Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal & Another Supreme Court of India
03-04-2019 Ashok Versus Bharti High Court of Rajasthan
01-04-2019 Yogesh Bharti @ Jugnu Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer of Police-Station Sariya, District-Raigarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
01-04-2019 Yogesh Bharti @ Jugnu Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
11-03-2019 Arvind Yadav Versus Harish Kumar Bhalla & Another High Court of Delhi
28-02-2019 Air Marshal Harish Masand Versus M/s. Outlook Publishing (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
19-02-2019 Harish Kumar Versus Employees' State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi, through its Director General & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
05-02-2019 V. Harish Versus The State Rep. by the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Government, Labour & Employment (Q-1) Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2019 M/s. Ashodaya Cement Products, Rep. by its Partner G. Harish & Others Versus Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director & Others High Court of Karnataka
11-01-2019 Bharti Airtel Limited & Another Versus Shyam Kumar & Another Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dehradun
07-01-2019 Harish Joshi Versus Directorate of Revenue Intelligence High Court of Delhi
22-12-2018 Hemlata Harish Bhatia & Another Versus Vallabhdas Lalchand Dhamanmal & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-12-2018 Harish Kumar Versus S.C. Gairola & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
19-12-2018 Shri Harish Chand Lohiya Deceased Through: Lrs. Versus Land Acquisition Collector/Adm & Others High Court of Delhi
12-12-2018 Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Satya Narayan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-12-2018 M/s. Ashok Saw Mill, Rep.by its Partnership Harish N. Patel Versus The Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Trichy & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-11-2018 The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Versus Dr. Harish Manilal Pathak High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-11-2018 Harish Manghan Manwani & Others Versus The Inspector of Legal Metrology & Another High Court of Karnataka
16-11-2018 Veena Harish Versus State of Karnataka & Another High Court of Karnataka
13-11-2018 S. Rajaseelan @ Harish Kumar Versus R. Malathi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-11-2018 M/s. Brigade Gardens Resort & Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director, Y.R. Manohar Versus Harish Kumar Oberai & Another High Court of Karnataka
31-10-2018 Bharti Kapoor Versus Des Raj High Court of Himachal Pradesh
29-10-2018 Harish Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
23-10-2018 Harish Gagnani & Another Versus M/s. Orient Trading Corporation, Rep, by its Managing Partner & Another High Court of Karnataka
17-10-2018 Ito 6(1)(3), Mumbai Versus Arogya Bharti Health Park P.Ltd Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai
09-10-2018 Guru Govind Bharti Versus Manager Porbandar, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand High Court of Rajasthan
17-09-2018 Harish Chander Gupta & Others Versus Rakesh Gupta & Others High Court of Delhi
03-09-2018 Harish Versus Lakshmamma & Others High Court of Karnataka
24-08-2018 Harish Nathmal Khetan Versus Shamlal Mannalal Bagdia & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
24-08-2018 Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Harish Hosiery, Faizabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lucknow
21-08-2018 Harish Bhasin & Another Versus Punjab & Sind Bank & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi
16-08-2018 Bharti Sharma Versus Deepak Sharma High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-08-2018 Bharti & Others Versus Ratan In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
06-08-2018 Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan Versus Harish Chandra Gupta SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
18-07-2018 Bharti Hexcom Ltd V/S CCE, Jaipur - I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
13-07-2018 Assumption Sebastian D'souza Versus Bharti Axa Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panaji
10-07-2018 The Branch Manager, Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., Salem Versus Veerachamy & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-07-2018 Ram Khilawan Versus Versus Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New Delhi through its Chief Executive Officer & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow Bench
10-07-2018 Harish Versus State High Court of Delhi
02-07-2018 Harish Mirchandani Versus Manish Darira High Court of Delhi
12-06-2018 Bharti Hexacom Ltd V/S C.C.E. & S.T., Jaipur-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
06-06-2018 K.N. Byregowda Versus N. Harish High Court of Karnataka
29-05-2018 Bharti Axa General Insurace Co Ltd. Versus Birmati & Others High Court of Delhi
23-05-2018 Ranbir Bharti Versus S.L.S. Dav Public School & Another High Court of Delhi
22-05-2018 Harish @ Hunny Versus The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
18-05-2018 Kirandeep Kaur Versus Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-05-2018 Sukhwinder Kaur Versus Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-05-2018 Harish Chandra Mishra Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
11-05-2018 Harish Kalra & Others Versus Suresh Bala High Court of Uttarakhand
09-05-2018 Bharti Singh Rathor Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC