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



M. Sairam Yadav v/s The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat


Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC300616

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC166069

Company & Directors' Information:- REP CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26921TN2005PTC055138

Company & Directors' Information:- DEVELOPMENT CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U13209WB1939PTC009750

    W.P. Nos. 4580 & 21707 of 2018

    Decided On, 02 July 2018

    At, In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

    For the Petitioner: Vedula Venkataramana, Senior Counsel. For the Respondent: Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Common Order:

1. Since the petitioner in these two writ petitions is the same and the basic cause which compelled the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the same, this Court deems it appropriate and apposite to dispose of these two writ petitions by way of this common order.

2. In W.P.No.4580 of 2018, challenge is to the notice bearing UC/W/Mp/1-4/Cir-20/TPS/GHMC/2018, dated 08.02.2018, issued by the Zonal Commissioner, West Zone/third respondent herein under Section 636 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’).

3. The sum and substance of the pleadings in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.4580 of 2018 is that without serving notices in advance under Section 452 (1) and (2) of the Act, the third respondent Zonal Commissioner issued the impugned notice dated 08.02.2018 under Section 636 of the Act and affixed the said final notice on the compound wall.

4. W.P.No.4580 of 2018 came up before this Court for admission on 12.02.2017 and this Court passed the following order:

'Though petitioner challenges the notice dated 08-2-2018, learned counsel for petitioner fairly, submits that petitioner has already given an undertaking to remove the temporary shed constructed by him but could not complete the removal as per the undertaking and requested reasonable time to comply with the undertaking and remove the temporary shed. Learned counsel submits that if time is granted till 26-2-2018, he will report to the Court the action taken in compliance of the notice dated 08.02.2018.

Time is granted till 26.02.2018 to remove the temporary structure made against which notice dated 08.02.2018 is issued and report to the Court steps taken by petitioner to the satisfaction of GHMC.

List on 26-2-2018.'

5. On 20.02.2018, petitioner herein filed I.A.No.3/2018 under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for extension of time by six months to comply with the above said order dated 12.02.2018.

6. Coming to W.P.No.21707 of 2018, in this writ petition challenge is to the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Second respondent herein passed vide Proceedings No.796/TPS/C-20/WZ/GHMC/2018, dated 25.06.2018. By way of the said order, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the application of the petitioner dated 20.03.2018 for regularisation of unauthorised construction.

7. Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation apart from perusing the material available before the Court.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner attacks the impugned action, firstly, by contending that as per Section 455-A of the Act the competent authority to consider and take action on the application for regularisation is the Commissioner of the Corporation, but not the Deputy Commissioner, as such, the order of rejection is liable to be set aside on the ground of jurisdiction. It is further maintained by the learned Senior Counsel that before passing orders on the application, the Corporation should have informed the petitioner the quantum of amount payable towards the penal fee; that the impugned order is absolutely silent as to the conditions which the petitioner failed to comply with; that the reference in the impugned order to the civil litigation is totally irrelevant and that the petitioner herein cannot be non-suited on the ground of waiver as there is no waiver against statute.

In support of his submissions and contentions, learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in BAR COUNSEL OF DELHI AND ANOTHER (ETC.ETC.) v. SURJEET SINGH AND OTHERS (ETC. ETC.) AIR (1980 SC 1612), GALADA POWER & TELECOMMUNICATION LTD. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD (2016) 14 SCC 161)and STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS v. MAHARAJA DHARMANDER PRASAD SINGH ETC
(AIR 1989 SC 997).

9. Per contra, it is submitted by Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation that there is no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the questioned action is not amenable for any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; that the conduct of the petitioner right from filing of the Civil Suit till he filed I.A.No.3/2018 before this Court does not entitle him for any indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; that having given an undertaking, agreeing for demolition of the structures constructed unauthorisedly, it would not be open for the petitioner herein to seek any relief from this Court; that the order passed in the name of the Deputy Commissioner got the approval of the Commissioner, as such, it cannot be said that the order is without jurisdiction.

In support of his submissions, Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation takes the support of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in KANTA GUPTA (SMT) v. VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEERUT AND OTHERS (1991 SUPP (1) SCC 219)and SANTANU CHAUDHURI v. SUBIR GHOSH (2007) 10 SCC 253).

10. There is absolutely no controversy with regard to the reality that after issuance of notices dated 18.01.2017 and 24.01.2017 under Section 452 (1) and 452 (2) of the Act, the petitioner herein instituted suit O.S.No.135 of 2017, on the file of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the said Court initially, on 31.01.2017, granted status quo order and thereafter vacated the said order and dismissed the said I.A on 26.12.2017. It is also not in dispute that after receipt of Section 636 notice dated 08.02.2018 petitioner had given a written undertaking letter dated 10.02.2018, requesting three days time to shift his valuables and a copy of the same is placed on record by Sri Sampath Prabhakar Relddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation. It is also not disputed that the petitioner herein, having given such undertaking, filed W.P.No.4580 of 2018 on 12.02.2018 and once again requested to grant time till 26.02.2018 and this Court granted time till 26.02.2018. On 20.02.2018, petitioner herein filed I.A.No.3/2018 and paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the said interlocutory application are highly crucial, wherein the petitioner stated as follows:

'5. I submit that before the said Writ is reached for hearing before this Hon’ble Court the Respondent officials have demolished the compound wall and on giving my undertaking the demolition of my shed was deferred by granting three days time, and that the same was brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court on 12.02.2018 and that this Hon’ble Court pleased to extend the said time, to remove the temporary shed till 26.02.2018.

6. I submit that the said shed is being used for the purpose of running/conducting a real estate office since I have got a real estate involvement with regard to layout of 50 acres land in Zaheerabad town, Sanga Reddy District. I state that the existing construction is shed but it was substantially furnished with posh and affluent. In order to shift my real estate office to any other place nearby, I require a minimum of six months. I hereby undertake to abide by the order of the Honourable Court before the expiry of six months time. I state that the respondents do not suffer any prejudice if the demolition activity is taken up after six months. Hence I am praying the Honourable Court to grant me six months time for pooling down existing temporary shed and bring it to ground level.'

11. Having said so and having given an undertaking earlier as observed supra, petitioner, in furtherance and in the direction of prolonging the matter and evidently giving a go-bye to the promises made in the undertaking letter dated 10.02.2018 and at different stages, filed application on 20th March 2018 under Section 455-A of the Act. The respondent Corporation vide impugned order dated 25.06.2018 rejected the application of the petitioner for regularization on the ground that the measurements in the documents are not tallying with the existing structures and as per the documents the total area of the building is 477.0 sq yards or 398.87 sq. Mt and as per the existing site the total area of the building is 641.42 sq. yards or 536 sq. m. The impugned order also states that there is lot of variation of measurements in the documents and the existing site and that the required set backs are not maintained as per the building rules.

12. In view of the above, the contention that the impugned order is absolutely silent as to the conditions which the petitioner failed to comply with, is neither tenable nor sustainable and accordingly the said contention of the learned Senior Counsel is rejected.

13. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent did not inform the petitioner the quantum of amount payable towards the penal fee before the order of rejection is also of no significance as the Corporation did not reject the application on the said ground.

14. The contention as to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to pass the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this Court, is also unsustainable in view of the approval granted by the Commissioner on 08.06.2018 as evident from the note file, a copy of which is produced by the learned Standing Counsel. It is also not disputed that CMA.No.6 of 2017 filed against the order of the trial Court, dismissing the injunction application is pending.

15. The contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner herein cannot be non-suited on the ground of waiver as there is no waiver against the statute and that the undertaking given by the petitioner earlier in W.P.No.4580 of 2018 would not come in the way of assai

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ling the order of rejection, in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the stand taken by the petitioner at various stages, is neither sustainable nor can be approved by this Court while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. 16. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the principles laid down in the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would not render any assistance to the petitioner herein. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted two weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to remove the subject constructions and if the petitioner fails to remove the same within the period stipulated, the Corporation is at liberty to remove the same without any further notice. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed of. There shall be no .order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

04-08-2020 Santosh Kumar Garg (Deceased) Versus U.P. Housing & Development Board, U.P. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-08-2020 G. Jayasri Versus The State, Rep. By the Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Dept., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2020 R. Kannan Versus State rep by the Inspector of Police, Inamkulathur Police Station, Trichy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-07-2020 K.G. Ravikiran Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2020 Bhagyamma Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sheshadripuram Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2020 M/s. Linga Transformers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Villupuram & Another Versus Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2020 Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana & Another Versus Jaswant Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Garikipati Bulli Nayana Versus M/s. M.S.R. Housing & Resorts Private Limited rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-07-2020 S. Sachin Narayan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-07-2020 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Branch Manager, Cantonment Versus Kaanikkaimery & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-07-2020 NSL Sugars Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Liason) H.V. Amarnath Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary (Sugar) Commerce & Industries Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-07-2020 R. Ramesh Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary & Another High Court of Karnataka
24-07-2020 Narasimharao @ Appi & Others Versus State of Karnataka by Turuvekere Police Station, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
24-07-2020 K.P.P. Panneer Chelvan & Another Versus State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai City-I Detachment, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2020 Vishnu Priya & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, SC/ST Development Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-07-2020 D.Siluvai Venance (Wrongly mentioned as Permons) Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-07-2020 P. Prabhavathi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-07-2020 Vishwanath & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Ranebennur Town Police, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
23-07-2020 Aqua Pump Industries, Rep by its Managing Partner Ramaswamy Kumaravelu & Another Versus N. Raju, Trading as S.M.Agriculture & Electronics, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-07-2020 Vikram Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
23-07-2020 Syed Hidayath @ Chotu Dubbel Versus State by KG Halli PS Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
22-07-2020 Sankar @ Jeyasankar @ Sivasankaran Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Udaiyalipatti Police Station, Pudukkottai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
22-07-2020 V. Venkata Siva Kumar Versus Institute of Cost Accountants of India, Rep. by the President, M.K. Thakur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Y.M. Chetan & Another Versus State By Channarayapatna Town P.S, Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka
20-07-2020 S. John Peter Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-07-2020 S. John Peter Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2020 M/s. Sarvodhaya Sangam Khadhi Vasthralayam, Rep. by its Secretary, Govindarajalu Versus S. Dhanalakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Sk. Imran Ali Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
15-07-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by their Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Radhakrishna Reddy & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Santhosha Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Sivarajan Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
14-07-2020 Asha & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 A.N. Prakash Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India Versus Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Others Supreme Court of India
14-07-2020 M/s. Iqra Granite Crusher, Rep. by its Partner Ahamedulla Khan, Kolar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
13-07-2020 Dr. K.J. Joseph & Others Versus The Mattathur Grama Panchayath, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Koti Lingaiah & Another Versus State of Karnataka by, Rep. by Govt. Pleader, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
13-07-2020 B. Manjunath & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
10-07-2020 Kuppusamy & Another Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthukottai Sub Division, Tiruvallur High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2020 Sharathkumar Versus The State of Karnataka by Annapoorneshwari, Rep. by its Government Pleader, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 M.P. Lokesha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 S.R. Ganesan Versus The State rep., by its, Principal Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2020 Mohammed Shahid Khaleel Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 Khem Raj Verma & Others Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
08-07-2020 Sakunthala Versus State Rep. By the Inspector of Police Supreme Court of India
08-07-2020 Waheed Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
08-07-2020 M. Alagappan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-07-2020 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bengaluru & Another Versus Byamma & Others High Court of Karnataka
07-07-2020 Dr. Y. Kedareswari Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Social Welfare (SC Development) Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
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
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
06-07-2020 Sunitha Krishnan Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-07-2020 M/s. Psa Impex Pvt Ltd Versus Graeater Noida Industrial Development & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-07-2020 The Management of M/s. Therelek Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, S. Venkatramana Bhat Versus K. Dharman High Court of Karnataka
01-07-2020 K.T. Augustian Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary, Irrigation Dept., Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
01-07-2020 M/s. Salem Constructions, A registered Partnership Firm, Rep. By its Managing Director, N. Selvam & Others Versus K. Santhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 Dr. P.S. Sandeep & Others Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-06-2020 R. Sampath Versus Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-06-2020 P.K. Thankappan Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla Police Station, Thiruvalla [Crime No. 731 of 2009] Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
26-06-2020 Bismi Aquatic Products, Rep by its Partner, M. Ashraf Ali Versus The Superintending Engineer, Ramanathapuram Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Ramanathapuram & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-06-2020 Far N Par (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad Rep. by its Director Naraharisetti Sirusha Versus Galt Pharma Exports Private Limited, Secunderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-06-2020 Sunil @ Sunil Ashok Gadivaddar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
25-06-2020 M/s. Goodwill Leather Art Rep By its Prop Md Quddus ALi Alias Md Quddus Ali Molla Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-06-2020 Suresh Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
24-06-2020 V. Vasantha Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to the Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-06-2020 Barak Valley Hills Tribes Development Council, Assam Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
24-06-2020 Maruthi @ Polard Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 M/s. Acme Trade And Agencies, ASSAM Versus Union of India Rep. By The Secy. to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 Rohini Gogoi (Under Suspension) Versus State of Assam Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Health Engineering Deptt. High Court of Gauhati
23-06-2020 Tanveer Ahmed Versus State Women Police Station, Rep. State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 The State rep.by. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai Versus R.S. Bharathi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 P.S. Srinivas Rao Versus 60th Padubidri Grama Panchayath, Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 Swetha Shri Selvakumar Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-06-2020 B. Ramamoorthy & Another Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-06-2020 A. Devaraj Versus The State of Tamilnadu, rep. By its Chief Secretary to the Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-06-2020 Prakasha Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
19-06-2020 Chandra Marbles Mattannur, Rep By Its Properties C.M. Jeeja Versus C.H. Ramachandran & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
19-06-2020 Maria Lijose Kumar & Others Versus The State, Rep by The Inspector of Police, CBCID-HQRS, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-06-2020 N. Krishnamoorthy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-06-2020 M. Nagalakshmi Versus Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-06-2020 M.V. Ramani Versus The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 Dr. D. Euvalingam & Others Versus The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 Md Kameual Islam & Others Versus The State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-06-2020 Awadhesh Kumar Versus Multi State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
12-06-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Punnam Chander complex, Chowrastha, Hanmkonda, Warangal Versus Sangeraboina Uppalaiah & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-06-2020 J. Antony Jayakumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home (Prison IV), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-06-2020 G. Gnaneshwar Versus The State of A.P., rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB, Hyderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-06-2020 State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, O/o. Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu, Chennai Versus M/s. National Pharmaceuticals [A-3], A Division of Rider Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Kamalchand Jain, Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-06-2020 Sethupathi Ramalingam & Another Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sooramangalam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2020 Rajeswari Versus The state rep by the Inspector of Police, Kariyapattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2020 The Salem District Lorry Owners Association rep.by its President V. Chennakesavan Versus The Inspector of Factories, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Sakthivel Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Inspector of Police, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, Neyveli T.S. High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Nisar Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Director General of Prosecution, High Court of, Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
04-06-2020 Jeyachandran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Public (Foreigners.I) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Anandan Versus State Rep by the Inspector of Police W-17, Peravallur Police Station Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 M. Parthasarathi & Another Versus The State Level Scrutiny Committee rep. by its Chairman Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras