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



Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Salem v/s The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Chennai & Another


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

Company & Directors' Information:- D TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403MH2015PTC268305

Company & Directors' Information:- P S TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31902WB1997PTC084379

Company & Directors' Information:- MAHENDRA LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1943PLC011234

    Writ Petition No. 29486 of 2019 & W.M.P. Nos. 29340 & 29342 of 2019

    Decided On, 26 November 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

    For the Petitioners: Muthumani Doraisami, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, M. Vijayakumar, R2, B. Rabu Manohar, Standing Counsels.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in letter No.2170/AU/CAC/Autonomous / 2019 dated 31.07.2019 and subsequent order in letter No.2170/AU/CAC/Autonomous/2019 dated 16.08.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to issue necessary notification / orders with reference to Autonomous Status of the Mahendra Institute of Technology, Mallasamudram, Namakkal District in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5835-5836 of 2019 dated 24.07.2019.)

1. The petitioner Institute of Technology established in the year 2007 is affiliated to the first respondent university. Currently, it offers eight UG courses and three PG courses in Engineering and Technology with students strength of 2087. The petitioner Institute applied for autonomous status to the University Grant Commission (UGC) through online on 12/04/2019. As per the procedure, hard copy of the application was routed through the first respondent with an advance copy to the second respondent. Pursuant to the application, the Inspection Committee of the first respondent inspected the petitioner Institute on 08/05/2019 and forwarded its remarks.

2. Thereafter, the Second respondent (UGC) constituted an Expert Committee consisting an officer from the Southern East Regional Office of UGC, nominee of State Government and a nominee of the affiliating university (Anna University). On 20th and 21st July, 2019 the Expert Committee conducted inspection of the petitioner Institute and submitted its recommendation to the UGC. The Standing Committee constituted by the UGC, met on 31/07/2019 and conferred autonomous status to the petitioner Institute for a period of 10 years (2019- 2029) and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 05/08/2019.

3. After the conferment of autonomous status by UGC, the first respondent which is expected to issue necessary notification/orders regarding grant of Autonomous status as per Conferment of Autonomous Status Regulations, 2018 has wrote to UGC stating that, it reject the request of granting autonomous status to the petitioner Institute since, it does not fulfill the minimum examination performance prescribed.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it is stated that,

“4. It is submitted that Anna University in its Syndicate meeting held on 27.05.2014 (231st meeting) has formulated some guidelines for forwarding the applications received from the colleges to UGC for award of fresh autonomous status or for extension of autonomous status. According to para (a) 7 of these guidelines for awarding fresh autonomous status “The overall pass percentage of the students in the University examinations shall be not less than 70% on an average over the last three years”. But the petitioner college has secured only 52% of pass percentage during the last three consecutive years. This has been pointed out by the Inspection Committee who inspected the petitioner's college on 08.05.2019. In pars 7 “Criteria for granting autonomy to colleges” under “UGC Guidelines for autonomous colleges” it has been emphasized in clause 8.1 that “Academic reputation and previous performance in university examination and its academic/co-curricular/extension activities in the past”. Based on these, University has sent a letter of rejection for granting autonomy to the petitioner college.

5. It is submitted that nonetheless a nominee from the University was in the expert committee constituted by the UGC for inspecting the petitioner college the report of the committee is being kept as confidential by UGC and did not disclose to the University. As such it is not known what were the recommendations recommended by the expert committee during the inspection. It is understood that the Standing committee consituted by the UGC in its meeting held on 31.07.2019 conferred the autonomous status to the petitioner institution for the period of 10 years of its own ignoring the criteria emphasized in point no.1 in para 7 of the guidelines of autonomous colleges of Anna University. This conferment of autonomous status to the petitioner college should not preclude the rights of the University granting /non granting autonomous status to the college.

6. It is submitted that according to the existing guidelines of the University, University has rejected the request of the petitioner college as there had been no requisite pass percentage as contemplated in para 7 of the guidelines for awarding fresh autonomous status to the colleges and communicated the same to the petitioner college vide letter No.2170/AU/CAC/Autonomous/2019 dated 31.07.2019 which has also been communicated to the UGC by the University. Notwithstanding the proposals for granting autonomous status to the college was rejected by the University, UGC has granted autonomous status suomoto devoid of considering the rejection letter issued by this University.”

5. The contention of the University is that regardless of UGC granting the autonomous status to the petitioner college, University is not prevented from taking action in the matters of granting autonomous status to the college. Though a representative of the university was a member in the Expert Committee of UGC, it does not estop from declining grant of autonomous status. The university has issued orders based on the guidelines issued by the University which was approved by the Syndicate this is not contrary or repugnant to the guidelines issued by the UGC. Without rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the inspection committee and distorting all facts, the authority of petitioner college is trying to get autonomous status for their college which is not consonance with law.

6. Referring in para 6 conferment/extension of autonomous status point 3 “In case the proposal is rejected by the University, the decision shall be communicated to the college and University Grants Commission through a 'Speaking order'”, the University contents that, the proposal of the college was rejected by the University through a speaking order dated 16.08.2019.

7. Further in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the counter affidavit the first respondent has asserted that the university has every right to stipulate more and above the condition prescribed by UGC and the court has limited power in the matter of education. For better appreciation of the respondent contention those paragraphs are also reproduced below:-

“14. The powers of the University is covered by Entry 15 being the concurrent list therefore the standards set by the UGC is bare minimum, the Unviersity has every right to stipulate more and above the condition prescribed by UGC.

15. It is submitted that, in the case All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kuman Dhavan and others (2009 (11) SCC 726) the Apex Court indicated the role of statutory and expert bodies for education and the limited role of court in such matters. The relevant paragraph reads:-

“The Courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standard and quality of technical education. If the Courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education.”

8. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder pointing out the error and fallacy found in the submission of the first respondent counter. The learned counsel for the petitioner's submission is that, the UGC Regulation 2018 will have primacy over the university syndicate resolution of the year 2014. The University aware of its resolution and the subsequent regulation of the UGC had forwarded the proposal to UGC on 29/05/2019. As per clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulation, 2018 the college shall submit the proposal to the Parent/Affiliating University. The said proposal to be forwarded to the UGC within 30 days of the receipt of proposal. In case proposal is rejected by the University, the decision shall be communicated to the college and UGC through a speaking order. In this case, the petitioner’s application was received by the university on 22/04/2019. The University inspection team visited the college on 08/05/2019 and forwarded its remarks to UGC on 29/05/2019. It never exercised its discretion under clause 7.3 within 30 days. Only after UGC granted autonomous status, the registrar of the first respondent vide his letter dated 31/07/2019 but signed on 02/08/2019 was served to the petitioner on 06/08/2019 and on 16/08/2019 wrote letter to the UGC to cancel the autonomous status.

9. The University Grant Commission is the statutory body which coordinate and determine the standards of higher education in universities. In exercise of the power conferred under Clauses 12 and 26, of the UGC (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”) was notified on 12/01/2018. Clause 6 of the said regulation deals with eligibility for getting autonomous status. Clause 7 prescribes the procedure to apply for seeking autonomous. Clause 8 set out the criteria for granting autonomy to colleges. The role of the parent university is set out in clause 4 in general and in clause 7.3 specifically.

10. For the purpose of this case, the clauses relevant in Regulations, 2018, is extracted below, for appreciation of this case:-

“Clause 4.1: To forward the application of the college for autonomous status/provide nominee on the Expert Committee/various statutory bodies and issue notification within 30 days for a college to furniction as an autonomous entity once autonomous status is conferred on the college.

Clause 4.2: If the University does not forward the proposal/provide nominee within 30 days, it shall be presumed that the University has no objection to the processing of the proposal of the UGC for conferment of autonomous status.

.........

Clause 6.3: The colleges must be accredited by either NAAC with minimum 'A' Grade or by NBA for at least three programme(s) with a minimum score of 675 individually or a corresponding accreditaion Grade/score from a UGC empanelled accreditation agency. However, if the number of programme(s) being run by the Institution is less than three, then each of the programmes should secure 675 or more marks. Accreditation status must be valid at the time of application.

..........

Clause 7.3:The college shall submit the proposal to the Parent/Affiliating University which may forward the same to UGC within 30 days of the receipt of proposal. In case the proposal is rejected by the University, the decision shall be communicated to the college and University Grants Commission through a “Speaking Order”.

Clause 7.4: If the University and State Government fail to provide the nominees for the UGC Expert Committee, the UGC may proceed with the on-spot visit and take decision on the proposal of the college.

Clause 7.5: If the college is found eligible as per the guidelines, the Commission shall examine the proposal for conferment/extension of autonomous status with an onsite visit by an Expert Committee constituted by the Chairman of the Commission consisting of three expert members (preferably at the level of Professor/Principal of an autonomous college) out of which one shall be the Chairperson, nominees from the Parent/Affiliating University and the State Government. A UGC official may be nominated to coordinate the visit.”

11. When the petitioner Institute applied for autonomous status, the University has provided a nominee to the Expert Commmittee constituted by UGC. Independently it has conducted inspection of the college and forwarded its report to the second respondent on 29/05/2019 for consideration and necessary action with the following remarks:-

“After due verification of guidelines for autonomy prescribed by Anna University, the college satisfies all the eligibility criteria , except the following:

i) The Examination results for the last 3 years is 52% ( Mininum requirements 70%) .”

12. This remarks were considered by the UGC Standing Committee and taking into consideration the ‘A’ Grade accreditation granted by NAAC which is the eligibility requirement under clause 6.3 of the Regulations, the UGC has granted autonomous status to the petitioner College. Once UGC has conferred autonomous status to a college under clause 4.1 of the Regulations, the role of the parent university is to issue within 30 days for the college to function as an autonomous entity. UGC Regulations is a subordinate legislation having statutory force. The University cannot rely upon its syndicate resolution passed in the year 2014 after the UGC regulation 2018 came into force, to defy the UGC direction.

13. When UGC which is the statutory Body conferred with power to grant autonomous status to colleges has granted the Autonomous status after due inspection, the parent university cannot have a overriding power under the new Regulation 2018. The scheme of Regulation speaks the role of parent University as below:-

'It can place its objection within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application (Clause 7.3). In all other cases, it has to provide a nominee to the Expert Committee (clause 7.5) and once autonomous status is conferred, shall notify the same within 30 days (Clauses 4.1 and 4.2).'

14. The UGC vide its letter dated 05/08/2019 has conveyed to the Anna University (first respondent) its decision to confer autonomous status to the petitioner college and

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

requested the university to notify it. The letter of UGC dated 05/08/2019 reads as below:- “The standing committee constituted by University Grants Commission, in its meeting held on 31.07.2019 decided to grant autonomous status to Mahendra Institute of Technology, Salem to Tiruchengode, Highway Mallasamudram – 637 503 Namakkal affiliated to Anna University, Chennai for a period of ten years w.e.f 2019-2020 to 2028-2029. The University is requested to issue necessary notification/order regarding the grant of autonomous status to the college as per UGC (Conferment of Autonomous Status Upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2018 for Autonomous Colleges. The College, if eligible, shall apply for autonomy grant as per the norms laid down in the Regulations.” 15. This Court holds that as per the scheme of the Regulations regarding grant of autonomous status to college, after the decision of UGC, the parent university can have no over-riding power unless there is suppression of vital information/fact which has come to light subsequently. 16. As a result, the impugned communication of the first respondent dated 31/07/2019 is quashed. The first respondent is directed to act upon the letter of the second respondent ( UGC) dated 5/08/2019 in tune with clause 4.1 of the Regulations and pass appropriate order within a period of 30 days from today. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

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 Vishwanath & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Ranebennur Town Police, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
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 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 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
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 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 Syed Hidayath @ Chotu Dubbel Versus State by KG Halli PS Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
22-07-2020 Y.M. Chetan & Another Versus State By Channarayapatna Town P.S, Rep. by SPP 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
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 Sivarajan Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
14-07-2020 A.N. Prakash Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
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
14-07-2020 Asha & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Santhosha Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bangalore 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 Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering & Technology & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
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 B. Manjunath & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
13-07-2020 Koti Lingaiah & Another Versus State of Karnataka by, Rep. by Govt. Pleader, Bangalore 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 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 M.P. Lokesha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
08-07-2020 Waheed Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
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 Sunitha Krishnan Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 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
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 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 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
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
25-06-2020 Suresh Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
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
24-06-2020 Maruthi @ Polard Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
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
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 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
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 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 Tanveer Ahmed Versus State Women Police Station, Rep. State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
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 The Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur & Another Versus Dr. Subroto Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
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 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
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
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 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 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 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 G. Gnaneshwar Versus The State of A.P., rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB, Hyderabad 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
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 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
05-06-2020 Rajeswari Versus The state rep by the Inspector of Police, Kariyapattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Chennai Garrtech Ltd., Rep. By its Director, L.S. Abinesha Babu Versus Inspector General of Registration, Santhome & Others 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 Anandan Versus State Rep by the Inspector of Police W-17, Peravallur Police Station Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 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
04-06-2020 Nisar Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Director General of Prosecution, High Court of, Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
03-06-2020 Somasundaram @ Somu Versus The State Rep. By The Deputy Commissioner of Police Supreme Court of India
03-06-2020 V. Saravanan Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Rep. by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-06-2020 Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), Rep. by its Chairman Prof. M.H. Jawahirullah Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 PUEBLO HOLDINGS LIMITED, Rep. by its authorised signatory Siddhesh Sham Kshirsagar Versus EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC, A company incorporated under the appropriate laws of the United Arab Emirates having its registered office and/or business address at ETA Star House, United Arab Emirates & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 Merugu Narsaiah @ Narsimha Reddy & Others Versus The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-06-2020 P. Venkatasubramani & Another Versus Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Dr. A.K. Sheik Manzoor Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 A. Janakiraman Versus The Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, rep. by its Chief Executive, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Balraj Versus State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-06-2020 Subramani Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri District High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 A. Thangaraj Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-06-2020 Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association, Reg No: 321/MDS, Rep by its Joint General Secretary, R. Muthukumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Kalamani Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the District Collector of Vellore District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Citizens Legal Right Association, Rep. by Its President, Joshy Kalluveettil & Another Versus Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
02-06-2020 C. Sasiyendran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-06-2020 Padmavani Educational & Charitable Trust, Rep.by its Joint Managing Trustee, Salem Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
01-06-2020 State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai Versus A. Mathiyalagan Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-06-2020 K. Shanthi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Birin Spinning Mills Limited, Rep its Director D. Rangaswamy & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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