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



M. Ganapathy (died) & Others v/s T. Chandra Kala Bhakyalakshmi (died) & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- CHANDRA KALA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51311WB2002PTC095126

Company & Directors' Information:- H CHANDRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990MH1952PTC008894

    CRP.(PD). No. 2630 of 2016 & CMP. No. 13577 of 2016

    Decided On, 20 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN

    For the Petitioners: K. Subramanian, SC for S. Punniyakotti, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, M. Aravind Subramaniam, Advocate, R2 to R4, notice served - No appearance.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.02.2016 passed in OS.No.453 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.)

1. The relief sought for in the revision petition is to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.02.2016 passed in OS.No.453 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 2, 4 to 7 in the suit. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff. The respondents 2 to 4 are the defendants 9 to 11 in the suit.

3. The first respondent is the plaintiff in OS.No.1707 of 2000 filed for permanent injunction. The first respondent/plaintiff filed IA.No.624 of 2007 in OS.No.453 of 2005 for amendment of the plaint, wherein the revision petitioners herein filed counter and resisted the application. By an order dated 19.02.2008, the said application was allowed by the Additional District Judge, (FTC-I), Coimbatore. Challenging the said order, the revision petitioners preferred CRP.Nos.1184 to 1186 of 2008, this Court by an order dated 31.10.2008 set aside order dated 19.02.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, (FTC-I), Coimbatore in IA.Nos.624, 665 and 668 of 2007 in OS.No.453 of 2005. Subsequently, the matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and ultimately the matter was remanded back by way of revision, the said revision was allowed by confirming the order of trial Court for amendment.

4. The revision petitioners disputed that the suit property has not been correctly valued and not paid the correct Court fees. At last, this Court by an order dated 01.03.2013 made in CRP.Nos.53 and 858 of 2013 observed as follows :-

14. In such a view of the matter, the order made in IA.No.272 of 2012 cannot be allowed to sustain. All the reasons stated in the impugned order for dismissing the application are not sustainable. In view of the above, I am inclined to dispose of the revision petitions with the following directions:-

I. The Court below shall forthwith frame a proper issue in respect of the valuation of the suit and the Court fee as required under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

II. The trial Court shall try the said issue as preliminary issue and allow the parties to let in both oral and documentary evidence on the same and then decide the said issue in accordance with law.

III. It is further directed that notwithstanding the observations made in the order in these interlocutory applications, the trial Court will issue summons to any witness, whom, either the plaintiff or the defendants want to examine and examine those witnesses, provided their evidence will be relevant for deciding the preliminary issue.

IV. The Commissioner, who has been appointed as per the order passed in the earlier application will be a competent witness and he will be examined in respect of the preliminary issue as a Court witness.

V. The report submitted by the Valuers to the Commissioner, which has been, in turn, produced as part of the Commissioner's report, shall also be considered and the contents of the same shall be proved by examining the Engineer's before the Court below as witnesses.

VI. The learned counsel for either side would consent that the deposition of the joint sub Registrar which has already been recorded shall be taken as evidence in this preliminary issue as PW1.

VII. It is left open for the parties to raise before the Court below as to whether the valuation of the suit shall be made as it was on the date of suit or on the date of amendment.

Based on the said order, the trial Court has framed the preliminary issue whether the suit has been properly valued and the Court fee paid on the plaint is proper and correct? After enquiry, the trial Court answered the preliminary issue in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the suit has been correctly valued and that the Court fee paid is proper and correct. Feeling aggrieved against the said order dated 26.02.2016 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in OS.No.453 of 2006, the revision petitioners are before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the revisions petitioners would submit that the suit is pending from the year 2000. Originally the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit and thereafter filed IA.No.624 of 2007 for amendment of the plaint and filed IA.Nos.665 of 2007 filed seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection of the suit property for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the building with the assistance of a Civil engineer and file a report. IA.No.668 of 2007 filed seeking a direction to the Joint Sub Registrar, Main Office at Railway Station Road, Coimbatore to produce the details regarding the guideline value of the suit property, both the applications were dismissed by an order dated 19.02.2008. Further, the contention of the revision petitioner is that they took up the matter upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the SLP was withdrawn with liberty to take appropriate remedy as may be available in law. The revision petitioners are entitled to raise the plea that the amendment has to be taken from the date of allowing the amendment application and not take back to the suit was originally filed. The plaintiff has not valued the suit property correctly and not paid the proper Court fee, therefore, the revision petitioners raised the objections and the trial Court held that the plaintiff valued the suit property properly and also not paid the correct Court fees. Before preferring the revision petition, this Court on earlier occasion directed the trial Court to frame the preliminary issue and answer them in accordance with law. The trial Court framed the preliminary issues and examined the Advocate Commissioner and the Sub Registrar and other authorities and marked the valuation report and the sale deed purchased by the plaintiff. Further, on the date of amendment the value of the property is morethan what the plaintiff valued, but the trial Court failed to consider the fact and gone back to the date of filing of the suit and also placed reliance on the judgments reported in (i) AIR 1987 SC 2085 in the case of Smt.Tara Devi v. Sri.Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj through Sebaits Chandeshwar Preasad and Meshwar Prasad and another and (ii) 1998-2-LW 161 in the case of D.Pattammal V. K.Kalayanasundaram. The Court below while dealing with the matter wrongly held that the valuation as on date of filing of the suit. Even though, the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that what was the value of the suit. The suit was originally filed in the year 2000 and the amendment was allowed in the year 2009. Therefore, the amendment has to be taken into consideration from the date of amendment and not from the date of filing of the suit. The market value of the suit property is about Rs.6,49,86,410/- the Court fees to be paid is Rs.46,73,980/-, the plaintiff suppressed the market value and valued the suit property for Rs.15lakh only, this fact has not been considered by the trial Court and simply reiterated the value fixed by the plaintiff is correct. From the evidence, the suit has to be valued from the date of amendment and Court fees has to be paid. The plaintiff has not correctly paid the Court fee, hence the plaint has to be rejected.

6. The learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would submit that it is a settled proposition of law, that any amendment is effected, unless the Court specifically states that the amendment effects from the date of allowing the amendment, the amendment would take from the date of filing of the suit. In this case, on earlier occasion the trial Court allowed the amendment application and the trial Court has not given any findings that the amendment will be effected from the date of allowing the amendment application. It only shows that the amendment effected from the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the valuation can be made on the date of filing of the suit and not on the date of amendment was allowed. The trial Court rightly held that there is no specific direction from which date the amendment came into force and the effect of the amendment. Taking into consideration, in the absence of any such specific observation from the date of amendment, therefore, it goes back to the date of filing of the suit. Admittedly, there is no evidence to show the value of the suit property. Even the learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the property is situated at prime locality of Coimbatore, it is adjacent property to the District Court complex and there is no vacant site is available in the nearby areas and there is no possibility to ascertain the value of the property from the recent sale deed and no sale deed has been effected either from the date of filing of the suit or subsequently. The plaintiff herself stated that value of the property is Rs.1,745/-per sq.ft, even that also was not properly calculated. Whereas, the reading of the order passed by the trial Court would show that the first respondent/plaintiff was not able to produce any sale deed either on the date of filing of the suit or subsequent to the amendment, the defendants examined DW1 to DW4 and marked Exs.B1 and B2 and Ex.C1 to C4 were marked by the trial Court.

7. In the earlier order made in IA.No.272 of 2011 dated 31.07.2012, the guideline value was fixed at Rs.2,460/- per sq.ft. The valuation report filed in Ex.C2 was not properly considered by the trial Court. Since, there is no specific direction at the time of amending the plaint for recovery of possession, as per general principle of law, this amendment should go to date of amendment, it came into effect from the date of filing of the suit in the year 2000. At the time of filing the suit, the value of the suit is more than 15lakhs, if the property is undervalued in order to evade the Court fees, either the Government or the defendants have to prove what is the actual value of the property. The collection of Court fee is between the plaintiff and the Court concerned and to certain extent the Government is also responsible. In this case, the official witnesses who have been examined have not filed any materials to show that on the date of filing of the suit what was the actual value of the suit property, the revision petitioners and the other defendants in the suit have also not filed any documents, in the absence of one such documents, this Court finds there is no reasons to interfere with the order pa

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ssed by the trial Court. 8. The suit is pending before the District Court, there is no pecuniary limit for the District Court, therefore the question of jurisdiction will not lie. Insofar as the collection of Court fees is concerned, when the revision petitioners feel that the suit is not correctly valued, it is left open for them to prove that on the date of filing of the suit what was the actual market value in the locality, if they are able to prove the same with relevant documents, the Court can consider the same, at the relevant point of time. At this juncture, the Court is not in a position to find out the value of the property for the purpose of fixing the Court fees. Therefore, there is no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Since, the suit is of the year 2000 and pending for more than 17years, considering the length of period, this Court directs the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, no extension of time will be granted. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

20-08-2020 Prakash Chandra Versus Ritesh Bhargawa High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-08-2020 State of Bihar & Others Ram Chandra Singh High Court of Judicature at Patna
30-07-2020 Dinesh Chandra Versus U.O.I. Thru. Addl. Prin. Chief. Conservator of Forest & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
10-07-2020 Dr. Chandra Deo Tyagi Versus Additional District Judge Court No.1 Meerut & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-07-2020 Satish Chandra & Another Verma Versus Prabhakar Singh Chandel, The Chairman, State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh, H.O. High Court Premises, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
26-06-2020 For the Respondents: Vibhav Prakash Tripathi, Advocate. For the Respondents: G.A., Subhash Chandra Yadav, Advocate. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-06-2020 Chandra Bahadur Rai & Others Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
19-06-2020 Chandra Marbles Mattannur, Rep By Its Properties C.M. Jeeja Versus C.H. Ramachandran & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Sri Dhiren Chandra Borah Versus Smti Pallavi Kalita High Court of Gauhati
17-06-2020 Bhabesh Chandra Biswas @ Bhupesh Biswas Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
02-06-2020 Ramesh Chandra Mishra Versus Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Puri & Others High Court of Orissa
02-06-2020 Ramesh Chandra Mishra Versus Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Puri & Others High Court of Orissa
01-06-2020 Nagen Chandra Das & Others Versus The State of Assam, Rep. by the Comm. And Secy., Deptt. of Urban Development Deptt., Dispur & Others High Court of Gauhati
08-05-2020 Union of India Versus Narayan Chandra Jena & Another Supreme Court of India
29-04-2020 Suresh Chandra Mishra Versus State of Odisha & Another High Court of Orissa
28-04-2020 Ratan Chandra Gogoi & Others Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
20-04-2020 Umesh Chandra Saxena Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-03-2020 Suresh Chandra Das Versus The State of Tripura to be represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Secretariat Complex, West Tripura & Another High Court of Tripura
19-03-2020 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh Versus Sharad Yadav Supreme Court of India
12-03-2020 Ramesh Chandra Singh & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-03-2020 Chandra Versus State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police Q Branch CID High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Nirpen Chandra Das Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
04-03-2020 Kailash Chandra Agarwal & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
04-03-2020 B. Chandra Shekar Versus Kurapati Narenaer High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-03-2020 Phool Chandra Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-02-2020 Ashok Chandra Tamta Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
24-02-2020 Chandra Bhushan Shukla Versus Surmila (Dead) & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-02-2020 Chandra & Others Versus Sri Kakumani Adikesavalu Chetty Charities, Rep. by its Managing Trustees, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
19-02-2020 State Of Uttarakhand Versus Ramesh Chandra Joshi & Another High Court of Uttarakhand
13-02-2020 Chandra Shekhar Azad Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
06-02-2020 Rakesh Chandra Savita Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
06-02-2020 Gopal Chandra Mishra & Others Versus The Chairman, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Dumka & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-02-2020 Vir Singh Versus Chandra Lata & Another High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 Govinda Chandra Tiria Versus Sibaji Charan Panda & Others Supreme Court of India
05-02-2020 Chandra Shekhar Dubey & Others Versus Narendra & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
05-02-2020 Dipak Chandra Dhar, Senior Trackman, Under Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway, Silchar Versus Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
04-02-2020 School Management, St. Xavier Public School Korba Versus Raghuvanshi Chandra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-02-2020 S. Pugazhendi, President, Subash Chandra Bose Podhu Nala Sangam, Nagapattinam Versus Dy.Superintending Engineer/Public Information Officer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Highways Department, Madurai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 Dr. Satish Chandra Versus M/s. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
03-02-2020 K. Chandra Sekhar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of for the State of Telangana
01-02-2020 Bipul Chandra Das & Another Versus Rakhi Acharjee & Others High Court of Tripura
31-01-2020 Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others Versus Panna Mahesh Chandra Dave & Another Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Chandra Ratan Bajaj V/S PIO/Dy. Chief General Manager (South), Delhi Transport Corporation (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Others Central Information Commission
28-01-2020 Biresh Chandra Giri Versus State of Orissa High Court of Orissa
23-01-2020 Arunabh Sinha Versus Panuganti Vijay Chandra Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
23-01-2020 Justice Valluri Seethamahalakshmi Versus Sara Chandra Environ Solutions Pvt Ltd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
22-01-2020 Ganapathy Versus Chandra High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Somireddy Chandra Mohan Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-01-2020 Chandra Kanta Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
13-01-2020 Prakash Chandra Jain Versus Director, Danish Grih Nir Sanstha MYDT Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
10-01-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus Ganesh Chandra Sahoo Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 Dr. Uday Sankar Chatterjee Versus Sankar Chandra Mondal & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-01-2020 Chandra Shekhar Azad Versus Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Assets Recovery Management Branch West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-01-2020 Shanti Chandra Pal & Another Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-01-2020 Birat Chandra Dagara Versus Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. High Court of Orissa
06-01-2020 Union of India Versus Amal Chandra Hore National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose @ Nethaji Versus State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-12-2019 Khokan Chandra Jana & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-12-2019 Ram Chandra Versus Sirdari High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
19-12-2019 Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Versus Sadhan Chandra Mondal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-12-2019 Shuba Deep Chandra & Others Versus M/s. Aliens Developers Pvt., Limited & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
13-12-2019 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Granites, Rep. by its Managing partner Nakka Chandra Shekar, Warangal Versus M/s Kapil Chits (Kakatiya) Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Warangal District & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
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
10-12-2019 Purna Chandra Soren Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-12-2019 Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited Lucknow & Another Versus Chandra Bhan Singh (Dead) & Others Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 Satish Chandra Adhikary & Others V/S The Union of India, Through General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-12-2019 Gopal Chandra Bairagi Versus Panchanan Mondal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-12-2019 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mahalingapuram, Pollachi Versus Rohit Kumar Chandra & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 The Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Vellore District Versus Chandra Sekar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 Bijay Chandra Das Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Government of India, Central Public Works Departments (CPWD), New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
26-11-2019 Sushil Chandra Bag Versus M/s. Capable Construction Rep. by its prop., Goutam Halder West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-11-2019 Chandra & Another Versus K. Mathiazhagan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 G. Chandra Shekhar Versus State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department High Court of Karnataka
15-11-2019 Santosh Chaturvedi Versus Kailash Chandra & Another Supreme Court of India
14-11-2019 Soma Barman Nee Datta Versus Sunil Chandra Podder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-11-2019 Sarat Chandra Kalita Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-11-2019 Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal Supreme Court of India
01-11-2019 Kamal Navin Chandra Modi & Another Versus R.T. Construction Prop. Rabi Tiwari & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
01-11-2019 Jivan Chandra Handique Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
31-10-2019 Praveer Chandra Versus Aprajita & Others High Court of Delhi
23-10-2019 The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another Versus Ripan Chandra Kar West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-10-2019 Barun Chandra Thakur Versus Ryan Augustine Pinto & Another Supreme Court of India
17-10-2019 Chandra Sekhar Bahalia @ Baja Versus State of Orissa High Court of Orissa
15-10-2019 Command Hospital (Southern Command) & Others Versus Sachin Satish Chandra Dubey & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-10-2019 Chandra Sundararaj (died) & Others Versus C.M. Dhinakaran @ Suresh & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2019 Ramesh Chandra, Branch Manager, PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiger Hills, Kasaragod, Kerala through Motty John, General Manager-Legal Versus K. Narendran, Mayura Art Press, Kasaragod & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
20-09-2019 Girish Chandra Srivastava Versus Reeta Srivastava High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-09-2019 Suprava Chandra & Others Versus Urmila Mohanty & Others High Court of Orissa
17-09-2019 Tapan Banerjee Versus Goutam Chandra Das & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-09-2019 Budha Chandra Singha Versus Dhaneshwar Singha High Court of Gauhati
16-09-2019 For the Appellant: Brijesh Sahai, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Nirvikar Gupta, Pradeep Kumar Chaurasia, Rajesh Pratap Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent: Govt. Advocate. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-09-2019 Mohan Chandra Tamta (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Versus Ali Ahmad (D) Thr Lrs. & Others Supreme Court of India
12-09-2019 Chandra Mohan Singh Bhandari Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
06-09-2019 Ram Chandra Rungta and Others V/S The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT NEW DELHI
04-09-2019 Ramesh Chandra & Another Versus Vinod Bhargav & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
03-09-2019 Jiten Chandra Talukdar Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary Ministry of Micro & Small Medium Enterprises (MSME), New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
28-08-2019 Chandra Kumar Singhi & Another Versus India Green Reality Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
28-08-2019 Alok Nath Chandra Versus State Bank of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-08-2019 Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Kanpur Versus Dinesh Chandra Jain High Court of Judicature at Allahabad