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



M/s. Amritrashi Apartment Pvt. Ltd. v/s J.B. Rayees Alam & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- ALAM & CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U60210WB1946PLC014227

Company & Directors' Information:- JB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999GJ2016PTC092368

    CO. No. 2459 of 2019

    Decided On, 16 August 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA

    For the Petitioner: Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Lalratan Mondal, Abhishek Chowdhury, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties: Sabyasachi Chowdhury, M.A. Samad, M. Rahman, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. The second defendant in a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs has filed the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. The suit was filed for the following reliefs:

"(a) A decree declaring that the schedule "B" property is absolutely a Waqf property belongs to Zohra Begum Waqf Estate under E.C. no. 1365;

(b) A decree declaring that the Defendants no. 1 to 4 have no right, title, interest over the schedule "B" property in any manner whatsoever;

(c) A decree declaring that the so-called mutation of the schedule "B" property effected by the Defendant no. 6 in favour of the Defendant nos. 1 to 4, is illegal and void-ab-initio;

(d) A decree directing the Defendant no. 5 7 6 to effect mutation of the schedule "B" property in favour of the Plaintiff;

(e) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants no. 1 to 4 and their promoter/developer, men, agents, servants and associates from effecting any sorts of construction upon the schedule "B" property in any manner whatsoever;

(f) A decree to recover the Khas possession of the schedule "B" property with the help of the Proforma Defendant nos. 9 & 10;

(g) The plaintiff is entitled to get an interim order of injunction restraining the Defendant no. 1 to 4 or their promoter/men/agents/associates and servants or mason from entering into the schedule "B" property and not to carrying on any sorts of construction in the suit premises and also to restrain them from taking away the materials/machinery all ready, placed on the site for effecting construction thereon;

(h) Cost of the suit;

(i) Such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled under the law and equity. "

2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the suit was not maintainable before the Wakf tribunal, since it was not covered by Sections 6 and 7 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1995 Act"). By placing reliance on the said sections, learned senior counsel argues that the suit ought to have been filed before a civil court. It is argued that Section 85 of the 1995 Act creates a bar of jurisdiction of civil courts only in respect of disputes, questions or other matters relating to any waqf property or other matter which is required by or under the Act to be determined by a tribunal. What is to be determined by a tribunal is, in turn, governed by the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the said Act.

3. It is further argued that the petitioner also took the objection in the court below that the suit was barred for non-compliance of notices as contemplated in Section 89 of the Waqf Act, Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 586 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner cites, in this context, a single bench judgment of this court reported at (2019) 1 ICC 397 [Gopala Conclave Private Limited and another vs. Haji Nurul Huda Layek and others], wherein the scope of interference by a tribunal was elaborated. In the said case, admittedly the suit property was not enlisted as a waqf property as contemplated in the 1995 Act since inception of the suit and accordingly it was held that the dispute did not attract the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the 1995 Act. Section 83(1) of the 1995 Act was held to pertain to defining the local limits and jurisdiction of the tribunals.

5. Learned senior counsel next cites a judgment reported at AIR 2016 Calcutta 351 [Sayed Hassan Ali vs. Mahammed Sahidul Islam], wherein another learned Single Judge specified the scope of a suit filed before the tribunal under the 1995 Act. It was held therein that only if disputes arose under the sections mentioned therein, being Sections 6, 7, 32(3), 33(4), 35, 38(7), 39(3), 40(2), 40(4), 48(2), 51, 51(5), 52(4), 54, 64(4), 67(4), 67(6), 69(3), 73(3), 83(2) and 94(1) of the 1995 Act, there was scope for the tribunal to interfere. It is argued that the present dispute, not falling under any of such provisions, the suit lay before a civil court and the plaint ought to have been rejected.

6. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the plaint nowhere says that the property-in-question, being premises no. 54A, was enlisted as a waqf but only states that it was enrolled as a waqf estate. As such, it is submitted that the suit was not maintainable before the tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party argues that the plaint categorically mentioned that the suit property was a registered waqf property. With particular reference to paragraph no. 3 of the plaint, it is submitted that the plaintiff stated therein that after attainment of majority, Sahebjadi Jahanara Begum, the descendant of the Waqif, got the entire waqf properties mentioned in the deed of waqf, enrolled in the office of the then Commissioner of Waqf, Bengal, under the name and style as "Zohra Begum Waqf Estate" under E.C. No.1365 and subsequently initiated several legal proceedings against the so-called lessees and illegal occupiers and recovered considerable quantum of waqf land and got it incorporated in the C.S. Record of Rights and also in the Waqf Register maintained by the proforma defendant no. 8, being the Board of Waqf, West Bengal.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party no.1, being the contesting opposite party, also places reliance on paragraph nos. 2, 3, 4, 12, 13 and the schedule of the plaint to argue that if the plaint averments were taken to be sacrosanct as per the principle governing the adjudication of demurrer applications, it has to be deemed that premises no. 54A is a part of premises no. 54, the latter having been enrolled as a waqf property and stated in paragraph no. 3 of the plaint to be registered in the Waqf Register maintained by the Board of Waqf. It has been categorically averred throughout the plaint that premises no. 54A originates from premises no. 54, thereby establishing an identity between the two. Thus, there cannot be any dispute that the plaint case seeks to establish premises no. 54A as a registered waqf.

9. It is further argued that the suit property, as averred in paragraph no.3 of the plaint, was enrolled under the Bengal Wakf Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1934 Act"). Placing reliance on Section 46 of the 1934 Act, it is argued that a waqf could be enrolled by the Commissioner or the Registrar of Waqf amended at any time on information collected by the Commissioner on his own motion or on the petition of any person interested. Thus, such an enrolment was equivalent to registration, bringing the estate within the fold of an enlisted waqf under the 1995 Act.

10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 next submits that this court, in the present revisional application, is not merely exercising the supervisory power conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India but also a power akin to revision as conferred on it by the proviso to Section 83(9) of the 1995 Act and as such, on its own motion or on the application of the board or any person aggrieved, may call for and examine the records relating to the dispute and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination. Such sweeping powers, it is argued, empower this court to go into the factual details as well and decide the matter on its own merits, being unfettered by the restrictions of an ordinary judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution.

11. Upon hearing both sides, this court is of the opinion that the power conferred by the proviso to Section 83(9) of the 1995 Act, although otherwise available to this court, is restricted by the scope of the present inquiry. This court is not sitting in judgment over an adjudication by the tribunal on the merits of the case but on the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which inquiry is itself restricted to the extent covered by Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. It is well-settled that an adjudication on an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code can only extend to a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint and, at best, any document referred to in, or annexed to, the plaint and cannot extend to a factual inquiry further than that. Therefore, as appealing as the power of factual examination conferred by Section 83(9) of the 1995 Act may be, the same is restricted in the present case by the fetters of an inquiry under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Section 83(9) and its proviso are set out below:

"83(9). No appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise, given or made by the Tribunal:

Provided that a High Court may, on its own motion or on the application of the Board or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination or pass such other order as it may think fit."

12. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner lay down settled law. Undoubtedly, the restrictions imposed by Section 85 relate to the powers of the tribunal and cannot operate as a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by a civil court in cases where the tribunal does not have power to decide the issue itself.

13. However, in the present case, it is seen from the tenor of the plaint that the moot dispute involved revolves around premises no. 54A being a part of premises no. 54, the latter having been averred categorically to be a registered and enrolled waqf property. To bypass the bar of Section 85 on the frivolous premise that premises no. 54A is not a part of premises no. 54 would be to frustrate the intention of the legislature in enacting the Waqf Act, 1995 as well as tantamount to pre-judging the issue involved, as to whether premises no. 54A was actually a part of premises no. 54.

14. It has been correctly submitted by the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 that, while adjudicating an application for rejection of plaint, the averments in the plaint have to be taken as sacrosanct. Proceeding on such premise and on a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is evident that the plinth of the plaint case is that premises no. 54A is a part of premises no. 54 and as such, a registered waqf property. Such proposition being a disputed one, the dispute falls squarely within the scope of Sections 6 and 7 of the 1995 Act. Sections 6 and 7 of the 1995 Act are quoted hereinbelow for a proper appreciation of the issue:

"Waqf Act, 1995:

6. Disputes regarding auqaf. –

(1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as waqf property in the list of auqaf is waqf property or not or whether a waqf specified in such list is a Shia waqf or Sunni waqf, the Board or the mutawalli of the waqf or any person aggrieved may institute a suit in a Tribunal for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal in respect of such matter shall be final:

Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of auqaf:

Provided further that no suit shall be instituted before the Tribunal in respect of such properties notified in a second or subsequent survey pursuant to the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of section 4.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no proceeding under this Act in respect of any waqf shall be stayed by reason only of the pendency of any such suit or of any appeal or other proceeding arising out of such suit.

(3) The Survey Commissioner shall not be made a party to any suit under sub-section (1) and no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against him in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rules made thereunder.

(4) The list of auqaf shall, unless it is modified in pursuance of a decision or the Tribunal under sub-section (1), be final and conclusive.

(5) On and from the commencement of this Act in a State, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted or commenced in a court in that State in relation to any question referred to in sub-section (1).

7. Power of Tribunal to determine disputes regarding auqaf.--(1) If, after the commencement of this Act, any question or dispute arises, whether a particular property specified as waqf property in a list of auqaf is waqf property or not, or whether a waqf specified in such list is a Shia waqf or a Sunni waqf, the Board or the mutawalli of the waqf, or any person aggrieved by the publication of the list of auqaf under section 5 therein, may apply to the Tribunal having jurisdiction in relation to such property, for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final: Provided that--

(a) in the case of the list of auqaf relating to any part of the State and published after the commencement of this Act no such application shall be entertained after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list of auqaf; and

(b) in the case of the list of auqaf relating to any part of the State and published at any time within a period of one year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, such an application may be entertained by Tribunal within the period of one year from such commencement:

Provided further that where any such question has been heard and finally decided by a civil court in a suit instituted before such commencement, the Tribunal shall not re-open such question.

(2) Except where the Tribunal has no jurisdiction by reason of the provisions of sub-section (5), no proceeding under this section in respect of any waqf shall be stayed by any court, tribunal or other authority by reason only of the pendency of any suit, application or appeal or other proceeding arising out of any such suit, application, appeal or other proceeding.

(3) The Chief Executive Officer shall not be made a party to any application under sub-section (1).

(4) The list of auqaf and where any such list is modified in pursuance of a decision of the Tribunal under sub-section (1), the list as so modified, shall be final.

(5) The Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to determine any matter which is the subject-matter of any suit or proceeding instituted or commenced in a civil court under sub-section (1) of section 6, before the commencement of this Act or which is the subject-matter of any appeal from the decree passed before such commencement in any such suit or proceeding or of any application for revision or review arising out of such suit, proceeding or appeal, as the case may be.

(6) The Tribunal shall have the powers of assessment of damages by unauthorised occupation of waqf property and to penalise such unauthorised occupants for their illegal occupation of the waqf property and to recover the damages as arrears of land revenue through the Collector:

Provided that whosoever, being a public servant, fails in his lawful duty to prevent or remove an encroachment, shall on conviction be punishable with fine which may extend to fifteen thousand rupees for each offence."

15. This view is further strengthened if we look into the definition of "list of auqaf" as enumerated in Section 3(g) of the 1995 Act, which is as follows: "3. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(g) "list of auqaf" means the list of auqaf published under sub-section (2) of section 5 or contained in the register of auqaf maintained under section 37."

16. The said definition not only encompasses a list of auqaf published under Section 5(2) but also takes within its fold Section 37 of the Act. Going a step further to Section 43 of the 1995 Act, it is seen that where any waqf has been registered before commencement of this Act (in the present case, allegedly under the Bengal Wakf Act, 1934), it shall not be necessary to register the waqf under the provisions of the 1995 Act and any such registration shall be deemed to be a registration made under this Act, that is, under Section 37 of the 1995 Act. If that be so, if the waqf property was registered under the 1934 Act, as averred in paragraph no.3 of the plaint, the same has to be deemed to be registered (as contemplated in Section 43 of the 1995 Act) under Section 37 of the 1995 Act, which in turn brings the said registration within the definition of "list of auqaf" as specified in Section 3(g) of the 1995 Act. This would bring the property within the fold of the disputes as envisaged in Sections 6 and 7 of the 1995 Act, thereby attracting the bar of Section 85 to the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

17. In this context, a perusal of the relevant sections, as indicated above, is necessary and those are set out below:

"The Waqf Act, 1995:

37. Register of auqaf. –

(1) The Board shall maintain a register of auqaf which shall contain in respect of each waqf copies of the waqf deeds, when available and the following particulars, namely:-

(a) the class of the waqf;

(b) the name of the mutawalli;

(c) the rule of succession to the office of mutawalli under the waqf deed or by custom or by usage;

(d) particulars of all waqf properties and all title deeds and documents relating thereto;

(e) particulars of the scheme of administration and the scheme of expenditure at the time of registration;

(f) such other particulars as may be provided by regulations.

(2) The Board shall forward the details of the properties entered in the register of auqaf to the concerned land record office having jurisdiction of the waqf property.

(3) On receipt of the details as mentioned in sub-section (2), the land record office shall, according to established procedure, either make necessary entries in the land record or communicate, within a period of six months from the date of registration of waqf property under section 36, its objections to the Board.

..... ..... .....


Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

>43. Auqaf registered before the commencement of this Act deemed to be registered. - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, where any waqf has been registered before the commencement of this Act, under any law for the time being in force, it shall not be necessary to register the waqf under the provisions of this Act and any such registration made before such commencement shall be deemed to be a registration made under this Act. ..... ..... ..... 85. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts. - No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court, revenue court and any other authority in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any waqf, waqf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal. Bengal Wakf Act, 1934: 46. Power to cause enrolment of wakf and to amend register. - The Commissioner on his own motion or on the petition of any person interested verified in the manner referred to in sub-section (7) of section 44 may direct a mutwalli to apply for the enrolment of a wakf or to supply any information regarding a wakf or may himself collect such information and may cause any wakf to be enrolled or may at any time amend the register of wakfs." 18. In such view of the matter, it is amply clear from a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint, as envisaged in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the suit is very much maintainable before the Wakf tribunal and there is no bar of law evident from the plaint inasmuch as the suit could not be maintainable before a civil court. Hence, the tribunal did not commit any jurisdictional error in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, C.O. No.2459 of 2019 is dismissed, thereby affirming the impugned order, without any order as to costs. 19. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-06-2020 Nabi Alam @ Abbas Versus State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
10-04-2020 Shadab Alam Versus State High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), Maidan Garhi, New Delhi, represented by its Vice Chancellor & Another Versus J.B. Rajan & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
06-03-2020 Sakuntala Devi Versus Dr. Md. Mumtaz Alam & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-03-2020 Mahey Alam Versus State High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-02-2020 Md Shafique Alam Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-02-2020 Md. Mofazzular Rahman & Others Versus Md. Sarfaraz Alam & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-01-2020 Mokhtar Alam @ Md Mokhtar Alam Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-01-2020 S.M. Zaheer Alam Versus National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) through its Chairperson, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
08-01-2020 Parwez Alam @ Md Prawez Alam Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-12-2019 Tanveer Alam Versus Dr. Mohammad Massod Alam & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-11-2019 Saghira Bano Versus Mahmood Alam & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-09-2019 Nizamuddin @ Saiyad Nizamuddin Versus Saiyad Shahnawaz Alam @ Laddan & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-09-2019 Ghulam Yazdani & Another Versus Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf, Malakpet, Hyderabad, rep. by its Hony. Secretary, Nawab Mahboob Alam Khan & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-08-2019 In the matter of M/s. J.B. Diamonds Limited (in Liquidation) & Another Versus --------------- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-08-2019 Md. Afroj Alam @ Md. Afaroj Alam @ Afroj Alam & Another Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-07-2019 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Noor Alam Mollah & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-07-2019 Md. Sarfaraz @ Md. Sarfaraz Alam & Another Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-05-2019 For the Petitioner: I. Alam, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------------- High Court of Gauhati
29-05-2019 A. Alam Pasha Versus Ravishankar High Court of Karnataka
26-04-2019 Md Noor Alam & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
22-04-2019 J.B. Sharma Versus UOI & Others High Court of Delhi
17-04-2019 Monjur Alam Mallick Versus Rajib Saha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-04-2019 Parwez Khan @ Parwez Alam Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
08-04-2019 Mofikul Alam Molla & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-01-2019 Jane Alam Molla & Another Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-01-2019 Sukla Chakraborty Versus Abed Alam & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-01-2019 Safi @ Safik Alam, (CG) Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
10-01-2019 Shafiuddin Versus Mashur Alam High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-01-2019 Md. Mahfooz @ Md. Mahfooz Alam Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
24-10-2018 Goudhul Alam Meera Maideen Pallivasal, Rep. Through its President Versus Mahaboob John & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-10-2018 Nisar Mehboob Alam Khan, Aurangabad Versus Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nashik Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune
24-09-2018 Mohd. Alam & Another Versus State High Court of Delhi
20-09-2018 Parvez Alam Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
19-09-2018 Sk. Jahangir Alam Versus The Branch Manager, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-08-2018 Dr. Mahboob Alam I.P.S. (Retd.) Versus The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2018 Md. Iftakar Alam & Others Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-08-2018 Md. Parvez Alam & Others Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
23-08-2018 Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Imteyaz Alam National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-07-2018 M/s. Gahana Mahal Rep. by Amjad Alam Versus Sadaf Safique West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-07-2018 Beeru Alias Shah Alam Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-07-2018 Md. Ibraj Alam, East Sikkim & Another Versus The State of Sikkim Through, The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Sikkim, East Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
12-07-2018 M/s. Shrachi Leathertex Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sk. Qumru Alam & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
11-07-2018 Noor Alam Khan Versus Hasina Bano Noor Alam & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-06-2018 Alhaj Dr. Md. Meraj Alam Versus Rehena Begum High Court of Gauhati
27-04-2018 Nafiz Alam Nurul Hudda Shaikh & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-04-2018 M/s. J.B. Enterprise Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
03-04-2018 Jahir Alam Versus Ram Lakhan Prasad Vishwakarma & Others High Court of Jharkhand
19-03-2018 Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Versus J.B. Memorial Manas Academy Management Society High Court of Uttarakhand
22-12-2017 J.B. Amin & Brothers (HUF), ?Nimisha? Versus Union of India, through Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
22-12-2017 Sofia Hasan, USA, rep. by her GPA Zulfaquar Alam Versus Shaik Mansoor Ali In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
30-10-2017 JB Mangharam Food Private Ltd V/S CCE & ST, Indore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
21-09-2017 Mohd. Mahboob Ali @ Sheru @ Sheikh Alam Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-09-2017 J.B. Daruka Papers Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
25-08-2017 In Re : Md. Aftab Alam High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-08-2017 Fakhre Alam & Another Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-07-2017 Amir Alam Versus State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
14-07-2017 Mujibur Rehman Haji Israr Alam Siddiqui Versus M/s. K.T. Kubal & Co. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-06-2017 Mohd. Maqsood Alam & Others Versus State (NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
17-05-2017 J.B. Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others V/S C.C.E. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
04-05-2017 Elegant Carpet Alam Exports and Others V/S Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Allahabad
25-04-2017 Rajib Saha Versus Monjur Alam Mallick High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-04-2017 Jahir Alam @ Jahid @ Jabed Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-04-2017 TCP Marketing & Research Private Limited Versus Khurshid Alam High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-04-2017 Roshan Aara Versus Jahir Alam High Court of Jharkhand
09-03-2017 Shahne Alam Versus M/s. I.K. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
23-02-2017 Albert Morris Versus J.B. Simons Supreme Court of India
08-02-2017 J.B. Industries Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-02-2017 Md. Feroz Alam Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
31-01-2017 Mohd. Khursheed Alam Versus State of Uttar Pradesh High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
02-01-2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., by its Divisional Office rep. by its Regional Manager Versus J.B. Sumangala & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
02-01-2017 Dr.MD. Dilwar Alam Khan Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
22-12-2016 Syed Naqui Alam Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-12-2016 Khaleek Versus Naaz Alam High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-12-2016 Sayyed Alam & Others Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
16-09-2016 Md. Anwar Alam Khan & Another Versus Zaibun Nisa & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-08-2016 Sayed Moinuddin Versus Md. Mehaboob Alam & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
17-08-2016 Mansoor @ Mansoor Alam @ Mansoor Ali & Another Versus The State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
29-07-2016 Shah Alam Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
08-07-2016 M/s. J.B. Overseas Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
05-07-2016 Alam Chand Versus State of H.P. High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-06-2016 Khorshed Alam Versus Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited. & Another High Court of Tripura
10-06-2016 A. Farhana Versus The General Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, P & GS Unit, JB Marg, Mumbai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-05-2016 Md. Sawood Alam Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
08-04-2016 The State Govt of Nct of Delhi & Another Versus Tanjeer Alam @ Raja & Another High Court of Delhi
07-02-2016 Md. Shamsur Alam Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-01-2016 Athar Alam Ansari Versus Walayet Ali Roomi Ansari & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-01-2016 Md. Shamsur Alam Versus Reliance General Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-12-2015 Masarat Alam Bhat Versus State & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
14-12-2015 J.B. Mangharam Mazdoor Sangh Thr Versus J.B. Mangharam Karmchari Union Thr High Court of Madhya Pradesh
20-11-2015 For the Petitioner: Ajay Rathi, Phurba Diki Sherpa, Advocates. For the Respondent: J.B. Pradhan, Public Prosecutor with S.K. Chettri, Pollin Rai, Asstt. Public Prosecutors. High Court of Sikkim
17-11-2015 M/s J.B. Industries & Others Versus Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
16-10-2015 Mohd. Amir Alam Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-10-2015 Nayab Alam Versus Tanveer Sultana High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-10-2015 Dr. Samiran Banerjee & Another Versus Syed Meraj Alam Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ranchi
16-09-2015 Ram Alam & Others Versus D.D.C., Varanasi & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-09-2015 Musheer Alam Versus Ramesh & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-08-2015 Tabrez Alam Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-08-2015 Kamre Alam Versus Md. Nasir Ahmed Khan West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-07-2015 Fakhre Alam & Others Versus Amity Business School, Noida & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC