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



Madhavi Sharma V/S National Highways Authority and Others.


Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1917PLC002781

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035620

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2017PTC220657

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CORPORATION PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909PB1942PTC000480

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA AND SHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2015PTC276949

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA & CO. PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28991WB1949PTC018064

    S.B. Civil Writ Nos. 5328/2014, 16864/2012, 17790/2012, 17791/2012, 17814/2012, 14987/2013, 15938/2013, 15939/2013, 19521/2013, 20057/2013, 21682/2013, 91/2014, 92/2014, 2879/2014, 14267/2014 and 443/2015

    Decided On, 22 July 2015

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

    For Petitioner: Raj Kamal Gaur, Dinesh Kumar Garg and Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, Advocates And For Respondents: Vikas Soni and Priyanka Soni, Advocates



Judgment Text

1. Since a common question of law and facts is involved in these writ petitions, therefore, they were heard together and being decided by this common judgment. For disposal of this bunch, the facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 5328/2014. Land comprised of Khasra Nos. 470 and 471 situated in village Sekhupur, Tehsil and District Dholpur, was acquired by respondent National Highways Authority for widening the National Highway No. 3-Agra-Gwalior section between 51 kilometers to 59 kilometers and for alignment of a loop-line. In the said acquisition, the land of the petitioner was also included. She submitted an application for award of compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer on 22.4.2011 along-with factual reports of 'patwari halka' counter signed by Tehsildar concerned. On that application, respondent No. 2-the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer)-cum-Additional District Collector, Dholpur, passed an order dt. 23.7.2012 holding the petitioner entitled to get compensation, but, as per petitioner, she was not awarded compensation for her entire acquired land, which occurred due to oversight of the factual report. Thus, the petitioner was deprived of compensation of her complete acquired land. The petitioner was awarded compensation of her acquired land treating the same as residential, whereas the said land is abutting the above National Highway and is located in midst of commercial properties and is of commercial nature. Since the amount of compensation was not acceptable to petitioner, she filed an application u/s. 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the District Collector, Dholpur, who was duly appointed as an Arbitrator by the Central Government for this purpose. In the application, the petitioner alleged that she has not been awarded compensation for the entire acquired land and that while determining the amount of compensation, the authority concerned has treated the land as residential and agricultural. As per the norms of DLC rates, the land falling within 20 feet of the National Highway, should be treated as commercial land and the land falling beyond 20 feet should be treated as residential land. While determining the compensation, the authority concerned did not keep those guidelines into mind and wrongly determined the compensation. The petitioner should have been awarded compensation for 20 x 30 feet (55.76 square meter) land of Khasra No. 471 treating the same as commercial, and compensation for remaining 157.55 square meter land of Khasra No. 471 and 38 square meter land of khasra No. 470 be awarded treating the same as residential. The National Highway Authority filed reply to the said application denying the averments made by petitioner. An objection was also raised that application filed by petitioner is time barred having been filed beyond the period of 30 days from the date of computation of amount of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner. Respondent-the District collector, Dholpur, vide order dt. 5.2.2014, dismissed the application filed by petitioner under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, the Act of 1956) treating the same as time barred having been filed beyond the period of 30 days as provided u/s. 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as on merits. Hence this bunch of writ petitions.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that as per Sec. 3-G(5) of the Act of 1956 if the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3-G is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on application by either of parties, be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. In present case, amount of compensation determined by respondent No. 2 was not acceptable to petitioner because it was wrongly determined and therefore, applications were filed by the petitioners u/s. 3-G(5) of the Act of 1956, which have been dismissed treating the same as time barred holding that the same have been filed beyond the period of 30 days as provided u/s. 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act of 1996') and also that the same are devoid of any merit. Under the Act of 1956, no period of limitation is prescribed for filing application before the Arbitrator u/s. 3-G(5) and that Sec. 33 of the Act of 1996 is not applicable on the applications filed by petitioners. Sec. 33 of the Act of 1996 is not applicable to the present cases because it is a provision to correct any computation error, any clerical or typographical error or any other error of similar nature occurring in the award passed by the Arbitrator, whereas in present case the computation of compensation has been made by respondent No. 2 as the Competent Authority and not as an Arbitrator.

4. It is argued that determination of compensation by respondent No. 2 was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, as for other similar lands of Dholpur city, which were acquired for the very same purpose for widening the same section of very National Highway No. 3, the competent authority had determine compensation treating the lands falling within 20 feet of the National Highway as of commercial nature and beyond 20 feet as of residential nature vide awards dt. 18.6.2008 and 9.7.2008, whereas compensation in present cases has been determined treating the same as residential and agricultural lands. Similar mistake has also been committed by respondent No. 3 while observing that computation of compensation by respondent No. 2 is proper and that compensation cannot be determined on the basis of DLC rates only, it has ignored the locality and other prevailing circumstances relevant for determination of real value of acquired lands.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners, in support of their case, have cited a Division Bench judgment dt. 12.10.2012 of Karnataka High Court in T. Yunis vs. National Highways Authority of India & Ors.

6. Learned counsel for respondents opposed writ petitions and submitted that petitioners had not submitted any objection against the Notification published by the Government of India u/s. 3-A of the Act of 1956 for acquiring the lands of various persons including the land comprising of Khasra No. 470 situated in village Sekhupur, Tehsil and District Dholpiir for widening the National Highway No. 3 of Agra-Gwalior section (Part of 51 KM to 59 KM). Aggrieved persons were heard on their objections by the competent authority and only thereafter declaration u/s. 3-D of the Act of 1956 was made by the Central Government by issuing notification. After publication of declaration vide notification u/s. 3-D, the said land vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Thereafter, the process for determination of amount payable as compensation u/s. 3-G was started. A public notice was published by the competent authority inviting claims from all persons interested in the lands. After giving them full opportunity of hearing, the determination of amount payable as compensation was made by the competent authority. Section 3-G(5) of the Act of 1996 provides that if amount of compensation so determined by the competent authority is not acceptable, it would be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government on application by either of the parties. As per provisions of Sec. 3-G(6), in the said Arbitration, provisions of the Act of 1996 shall apply. In present cases, petitioners filed applications u/s. 3-G(5) before the Arbitrator (District Collector, Dholpur) appointed by the Central Government, which were duly contested by respondents by filing reply. The Arbitrator, after considering the arguments of the respective parties, passed the impugned award dt. 5.2.2014 as defined under the provisions of the Act of 1996, by which the applications under Section 3-G(5) of the Act of 1956 were rejected. Petitioners have alternative remedy as provided u/s. 34 of the Act of 1996 of filing application for setting aside such award.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record.

8. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in T. Yunis, supra, rejected the argument that Art. 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply and not Art. 137. The Division Bench judgment was in fact rendered affirming the judgment passed in writ petition filed by none other than the National Highways Authority of India. That was a converse case in which National Highways Authority of India moved an application u/s. 3-G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956 before the Collector to redetermine the compensation determined by the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. In that case, the appellant's land was notified for benefit of the National Highway Authority under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the National Highways Act, for widening the National Highway No. 13 at Amaravathi village of Hospet taluk. The Competent Authority determined compensation payable to acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2,583.6/- per square meter, by considering the lands as non-agricultural land and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 78,48,976/-. The National Highway Authority of India moved an application u/s. 3-G(5) of the National Highway Act 1956, to re-determine compensation by the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. The Deputy Commissioner, Bellary, was appointed as arbitrator by the Central Government for re determining the market value. The appellant appeared before the Arbitrator and raised an objections in regard to maintainability of application u/s. 3-G(5), contending that same was barred by limitation. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties came to conclusion that application filed by National Highway Authority was maintainable and not barred by limitation. The appellant filed writ petitions challenging said order. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions on the ground that limitation to file application u/s. 3-G(5) of the Highways Act would fall under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act and an application can be filed for re-determination of market value, within a period of three years. Petitions were accordingly dismissed. Challenging the same, the appeals were preferred before the Division Bench. The question before the Division Bench to be decided was whether, under the facts and circumstances. Article 119 of the Limitation Act or Art. 137 would attract to consider an application filed under Sec. 3-G(5) of the National Highway Act. The Division Bench has considered the arguments raised by both the parties and in para 7 to 12 held as under:--

"7. In order to appreciate the facts of the case, it would be appropriate for us to consider the provision of 3-G(5) of the National Highway Act which reads as hereunder:

"3-G(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central government."

8. By looking into sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 3-G, it is clear that any person aggrieved by the determination of the amount by the Competent Authority under under sub-sec. (I) of 3-G can make an application before the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. In other words, though the National Highway Authority is beneficiary for whose benefit the land is acquired is also entitled to make an application for redetermining the amount, determined by the competent Authority. In the circumstances; the application filed by the first respondent invoking Sec. 3-G(5) in redetermining the amount, determined by the third respondent before the second respondent is maintainable.

9. Having held so, the question would be whether the application filed by the second respondent u/s. 3-G(5) was barred by the limitation or not

10. Mr. S.N. Ashwathnarayana, the learned counsel for the appellant relying upon Sec. 3-G(6) contends that the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would apply to arbitration proceedings under the National Highways Act and" there is no quarrel over the aforesaid contention in view of Sec. 3-G(6). According to him Art. 119 of the Limitation Act would apply to the proceedings initiated u/s. 3-G(5) and he relied upon Sec. 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In order to appreciate his arguments, we have to consider Sec. 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Arts. 119 and 137 of the Limitation Act. Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act reads as hereunder:--

"43. Limitations.--(1) The Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in Court.

(2) for the purposes of this section and the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), an arbitration shall be deemed to have commenced on the date referred in Sec. 21.

(3) Where an arbitration agreement to submit future disputes to arbitration provides that any claim to which the agreement applies shall be barred unless some step to commence arbitral proceedings is taken within a time fixed by the agreement, and a dispute arises to which the agreement applies, the Court, if it is of opinion that in the circumstances of the case undue hardship would otherwise be caused, and notwithstanding that the time so fixed has expired, may on such terms, if any, as the justice of the case may require, extend the time for such period as it thinks proper.

(4) Where the Court orders that an arbitral award be set aside, the period between the commencement of the arbitration and the date of the order of the Court shall be excluded in computing the time prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), for the commencement of the proceedings (including arbitration) with respect to the dispute so submitted."

11. Even on perusal of Sec. 43, it is not the case of the respondent that Sec. 43 of Limitation Act is not applicable, but, the contention of the respondent No. 1 is that Art. 119 is not applicable and Art. 137 would apply to the facts of this case. Article 119 of the Limitation Act reads as hereunder:--

119. Under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940)



Similarly Article 137 of the Limitation Act reads as hereunder:--



12. On perusal of Art. 119, we would have agreed with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant provided that the first respondent had made an application to set aside the award or get an award remanded for reconsideration or if he had filed an appeal into Court for confirmation and if the Arbitrator has already passed an award, if the person who had no grievance with the order, the said award has to be confirmed and if the person aggrieved by the award is intending to get the award set aside or getting the award remanded for reconsideration, then only Art. 119 of the Limitation Act would apply, and therefore, contention of the appellant's counsel that 30 days limitation would be applicable to an application filed u/s. 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, cannot be accepted. Admittedly, as of now no award is passed by the Arbitrator. The amount determined by the competent authority under the National Highways Act cannot be treated as an award passed by the Arbitrator. The contention of the appellant counsel is to consider the amount determined by the competent authority as award passed under the Arbitration. But, the said contention cannot be accepted by any Court of law. Therefore, the contention urged by the appellant has to be rejected. Having seen all the three Acts, no period of limitation has been stipulated to seek a reference u/s. 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act. In such circumstances

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

, the only provision available to the parties is to invoke Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, which provides three years from the date on which right to apply accrues. In the instant case, within a period of four months from the date of determining the value by the competent authority. Section 3-G(5) application is moved." 9. Aforesaid judgment having been rendered in writ petition filed by respondent National Highways Authority, has since attained finality, and the stand of the National Highways Authority before the High Court of Karnataka has to be accepted as valid even in the matters before this court because the same has been authoritatively determined so by the Karnataka High Court that since no period of limitation has been stipulated u/s. 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the only provision available to parties to invoke is the provision of Sec. 137 of the Limitation Act, which provides for three years period to file such application from the date on which right to apply accrues. 10. In view of the above, all writ petitions are allowed in terms of Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in T. Yunis, supra. Impugned order passed by respondent District Collector, Dholpur, District Dholpur, is set aside. Matters are remanded back to the District Collector for passing appropriate order on merits treating the applications to be filed within limitation as admittedly in present cases applications have been filed within three years, and to decide the applications afresh within a period of one year from the date the parties approach him along-with a copy of this order, in accordance with law after recording evidence. Since this disposes of bunch of sixteen writ petitions, office to place a copy of this order on record of each file of the bunch.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

09-09-2020 Shreyas Sinha Versus The West Bengal National University Of Juridical Sciences & Others Supreme Court of India
08-09-2020 Arun Kumar Sharma Versus Adesh Goel & Others High Court of Delhi
07-09-2020 Suneeta Sharma Versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Punjab & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 Diwan Chand Goyal Versus National Capital Region Transport Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
01-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Ashwani Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
01-09-2020 Indian National Trust For Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) Patna Chapter, through its Convener Sri Jatindra Kumar Lall, Patna, Bihar Versus The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Patna, Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
31-08-2020 Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Kumar Versus C.B.I. High Court of Delhi
27-08-2020 National Highway Authority of India Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
27-08-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
27-08-2020 IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollway Private Limited Versus National Highways Authority of India High Court of Delhi
26-08-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nand Kishore Sharma & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
25-08-2020 Abhishek Sharma @ Chanchal Pandit Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-08-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Chhattisgarh Versus Indra Bai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-08-2020 ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Through Manager, Rajasthan Versus Ram Prakash Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 M/s. Narmada Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Pramod Gendre, Chhattisgarh Versus Punjab National Bank Through Its Chief Manager, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-08-2020 Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Gauhati
21-08-2020 H.N. Sharma & Anr versus Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-08-2020 National Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Uttar Pardesh & Another Versus M/s. Khandelwal Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Union of India & Another Versus M/s. K.C. Sharma & Co. & Others Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma V/S Rakesh Sharma and Others. Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 V.P. Sharma & Others Versus Dr. G.S. Kochar Surgeon Urologist) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Supreme Court of India
07-08-2020 Vijay Ramswarup Sharma Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
07-08-2020 The Divisional Manager, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore Versus Paneerselvam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 National Insurance Company Ltd., Third Floor, No.751, Anna Salai, Chennai Versus Vijaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Kailash Chand Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 P. Anil Kumar @ Chempazhanthi Anil & Others Versus The Indian Red Cross Society, Represented by Its Secretary General, National IRCS, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
04-08-2020 Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 GMR Hyderabad Vijayawada Expressways Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus National Highways Authority of India & Another High Court of Delhi
01-08-2020 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office II, Salem Versus. Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-07-2020 Dr. Uma Suresh Versus The Authorised Officer, The National Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-07-2020 Manish Sharma & Another Versus Urmila Arora High Court of Delhi
27-07-2020 Punjab National Bank, Guwahati Versus Madhab Kumar Das & Another & Others High Court of Gauhati
24-07-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus M/s. D.D Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Panipat National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 Edelweiss Broking Limited Versus National Stock Exchange of India Limited SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-07-2020 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuddalorre Versus B. Muthusamy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Hi-Tech Pipes Ltd. Versus National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
15-07-2020 Nikhil Singhvi Versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
14-07-2020 The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India Versus Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Others Supreme Court of India
13-07-2020 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Erode Versis Baby & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus A. Badurinssa & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Jaipur & Others Versus Manju Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
24-06-2020 Tara Prasad Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
23-06-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Through The General Manager & Another Versus Narendra Kumar Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-06-2020 Ashok Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Ram Avtar Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Rajendra Singh & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
17-06-2020 S. Selvam Versus The Senior Manager – HRD Air India Limited, (Now known as National Aviation Company of India Limited), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2020 Aman Sharma Versus The Chief Election Commissioner & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
16-06-2020 Pia Singgh Versus National Law University Delhi High Court of Delhi
15-06-2020 Piara Ram Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager, Punjab National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 Rajan Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
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
09-06-2020 Rakesh Malhotra Versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
03-06-2020 Bhubaneshwar Expressways Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Highways Authority of India High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 Prateek Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Aditya Birla Money Limited, Rep. By its Head – Legal & Compliance, L.R. Murali Krishnan Versus The National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Investors Services Cell, Kotturpuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-05-2020 Kshitiz Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
27-05-2020 Gautam Navlakha Versus National Investigation Agency & Another High Court of Delhi
26-05-2020 Dr. Divyesh J. Pathak & Others Versus National Board of Examinations & Another High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 Mukesh Sharma Versus C.V. Ramana High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-05-2020 Randhir Rambrij Sharma Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Mohet Hojai Versus National Investigation Agency Supreme Court of India
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
13-05-2020 Jayanta Sarkar Versus National Jute Board & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-05-2020 Punjab National Bank & Others Versus Atmanand Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
06-05-2020 Kamla Sharma Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Anurag Sarmah @ Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
27-04-2020 Dr. Devyesh J. Pathak & Others Versus National Board of Examination & Others High Court of Delhi
22-04-2020 National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Versus S.A. Alimenta Supreme Court of India
22-04-2020 Anand Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-04-2020 Dr. Mahesh Sharma & Another Versus Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Rajasthan
15-04-2020 Sanjeev Sharma Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
13-04-2020 Mamta Sharma & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Mohmmad Yunus Versus Madho Prasad Sharma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
07-04-2020 (The State) The National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Assam Versus Akhil Gogoi High Court of Gauhati
30-03-2020 Prashant Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
23-03-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Sikkim Versus Bishal Chettri & Another High Court of Sikkim
23-03-2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others Versus Megha Sharma & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-03-2020 Anju Sharma Versus Sunita Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
19-03-2020 National Board of Examinations V/S Prometric Testing Pvt. Ltd High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Shambhu Prasad Sharma Advocate Versus Renu Jogi High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 Saurav Sharma Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
17-03-2020 Aashu Pandit @ Aashu Bajpai @ Aash Narayan Sharma Versus Union of India High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
13-03-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Suchandra Basak West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-03-2020 The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata, through its Regional Manager Versus Marotrao & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
13-03-2020 Unnati Bhardwaj & Another Versus K.P. Sharma High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Subhash Mahanta West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-03-2020 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Puducherry Versus Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., National Legal Vertical (Legal Cell), New Delhi Versus Biswadeb Koley & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 Ajay Sharma & Others Versus Kulwant Singh High Court of Delhi
11-03-2020 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Basheerbagh, Hyderabad through local branch at Khammam Versus F.R. Phillip High Court of for the State of Telangana