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



M/s. B & B Growing, New Delhi & Another v/s Capital Co-Op. Group Housing Society Ltd., Delhi & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2006PTC235208

Company & Directors' Information:- L & T CAPITAL COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67190MH2000PLC125653

Company & Directors' Information:- S V HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2006PTC150816

Company & Directors' Information:- B. P. CAPITAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74899DL1994PLC057572

Company & Directors' Information:- B. P. CAPITAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74899HR1994PLC072042

Company & Directors' Information:- D B GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63000MH2006PTC158759

Company & Directors' Information:- K M CAPITAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65910DL1992PLC048421

Company & Directors' Information:- R. L. CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH1992PTC066895

Company & Directors' Information:- A. K. CAPITAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993MH2006PTC165749

Company & Directors' Information:- P H CAPITAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74140MH1973PLC016436

Company & Directors' Information:- V G P HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65922TN1972PTC006240

Company & Directors' Information:- I B CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993GJ2011PTC065780

Company & Directors' Information:- OP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253DL2015FTC285049

Company & Directors' Information:- B R HOUSING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45203WB1995PTC073083

Company & Directors' Information:- G K S HOUSING LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U45201TN1996PLC036147

Company & Directors' Information:- S E R CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921MH1998PTC116812

Company & Directors' Information:- R. J. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2007PTC114792

Company & Directors' Information:- A J CAPITAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC072149

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA HOUSING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200PN2008PLC131883

Company & Directors' Information:- R D HOUSING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1996PTC081099

Company & Directors' Information:- CAPITAL LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1956PLC001592

Company & Directors' Information:- G C HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2003PTC122011

Company & Directors' Information:- J. D. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309PN2016PTC166622

Company & Directors' Information:- G S S GROUP PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01212KL1995PTC009575

Company & Directors' Information:- A N HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400UP2008PTC035479

Company & Directors' Information:- D C GROUP PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1981PTC033553

Company & Directors' Information:- M R CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921DL1996PTC075492

Company & Directors' Information:- D L HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2009PTC135703

Company & Directors' Information:- R G HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2012PTC052735

Company & Directors' Information:- B B HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109WB1997PTC084775

Company & Directors' Information:- M G M CAPITAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120RJ1995PLC009482

Company & Directors' Information:- AT GROUP INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2013PLC247209

Company & Directors' Information:- R & L GROUP LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01403HR2012PLC046635

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200UP2007PTC033329

Company & Directors' Information:- S V R HOUSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200AP2009PTC064511

Company & Directors' Information:- R K HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032252

Company & Directors' Information:- J HOUSING PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1980PTC010338

Company & Directors' Information:- K P A HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN2005PTC055354

Company & Directors' Information:- V. D. P. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2012PTC054142

Company & Directors' Information:- G R E HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102AP2008PTC061004

Company & Directors' Information:- G M HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1994PTC076203

Company & Directors' Information:- CO-OP PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70109WB1944PTC011810

Company & Directors' Information:- B L AND CO NEW DELHI PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1968PTC004910

Company & Directors' Information:- K K HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200DL2012PTC232532

Company & Directors' Information:- V R HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201AP1998PTC030550

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209PB2012PTC036226

Company & Directors' Information:- S. N. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2010PTC202407

Company & Directors' Information:- P & M HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102MH2012PTC229509

Company & Directors' Information:- D. H. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102MH2012PTC237322

Company & Directors' Information:- N K HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH2003PTC139304

Company & Directors' Information:- C S R HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TG2012PTC078681

Company & Directors' Information:- K-HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TN2009PTC070655

Company & Directors' Information:- L R HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100TG2013PTC089981

Company & Directors' Information:- THE CAPITAL HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL1953PTC002254

Company & Directors' Information:- K N S HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC167504

Company & Directors' Information:- R C HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032258

Company & Directors' Information:- W B HOUSING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109DL2013PTC250413

Company & Directors' Information:- B G HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2004PTC124095

Company & Directors' Information:- NEW INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36999TN1940PTC001776

Company & Directors' Information:- M K Y HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TG2008PTC059752

Company & Directors' Information:- G M R HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U70102TG2002PTC038792

    First Appeal Nos. 266, 161 of 2010

    Decided On, 07 August 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Appellants: Rakesh, Ankit Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Vivek Singh, Advocate.



Judgment Text


Oral:

The complainant which is the appellant in FA/161/2011 and respondent in FA/266/2010 is a cooperative society. The society awarded a work for water proofing of the terrace of the society complex to M/s B & B Growing which is the respondent in FA/161/2011 and appellant in FA/266/2010. A written agreement was executed between the parties by way of a letter dated 29.4.2001. The opposite party provided a defect liability period of 05 years from the date of completion of the work. Subsequently, additional work of lifting 5000 litre water tanks and placing them on the terrace was also awarded to the opposite party. The society paid a total sum of Rs.1351761/- to the opposite party for the work executed by them. The case of the complainant is that quality of the work executed by the opposite party was poor and as a result, seepage took place in a number of residential flats occupied by its members. The matter was brought by the society to the notice of the opposite party and a meeting was also convened wherein the matter was discussed. The Minutes of the Meeting to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

“1) It was mutually decided by the rep. of MBT, their applicator Mr. Balbir S. Chawla and Capital CGHS Ltd. respectively that rectification work of the Building shall be taken in order to (K.L. Baveja) eradicate the problem of seepage/leakage of the roof-top.

2) The MBT representative, Mr. Patel and Mr. Balbir S. Chawla agreed on the below mentioned schedule:

1. Block C-2 of the Building will be rectified, tested (by PONDING as per the agreed specification in the contract) and handed over to the society.

2. Society after conducting bye test alongwith PONDING.

3. On satisfactory results of the Block C-2 (i.e. no seepage/leakage in observed), other balance area/blocks of the building shall be taken up for similar PONDING TEST) and subsequent rectification.

4. The above work on C-2 Block shall starts from 23 Oct., 02 and finish latest by 31 Oct., 02.

5. For other areas, work shall be commenced by mutual consent of Capital CGHS and M/s. B&B Growing alongwith MBT, Should the PONDING TEST of C-2 Block be to the satisfaction of Capital CGHS, other areas will then be taken up. However, the total period allowed for the total completion of job including rectification will not more than 60 days from 23 Oct., 02

The defect liability period was discussed. As per Mr. Chawla, the period starts from 09.12.2001 instead of form the date of completion of rectification work as pointed out by Capital CGHS Ltd. This point could not be resolved, and it was agreed by both the parties that it will be taken up after completion of the rectification work based on the award letter interpretation which would be acceptable to both the parties.

The above jobs will be done by M/s. B&B Growing / MBT at their own cost.

As M/s. B&B Growing is authorized applicator of M/s. MBT India Pvt. Ltd.,

MBTs rep. (Mr. Upan Patel) confirms that the company (MBT) backs up the waterproofing with done by the authorized application i.e. M/s. B&B Growing.”

2. The case of the complainant is that the defects in the work were not removed by the opposite party despite repeated requests made to it. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned State Commission by way a consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount which it had paid to the opposite party alongwith interest or in the alternative, execution of the entire water proofing to its satisfaction with damages.

3. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party which took two preliminary objections. The first preliminary objection taken in the written version was that the complaint was barred by limitation since the work was executed in the year 2001. The second objection was that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of M/s Master Builders Technology Pvt. Ltd. which supplied the material required to be used for the purpose of executing the water proofing work. It was also alleged by the opposite party that the complainant did not get the RCC tank removed before placing the PVC tanks on the terrace which resulted in extra load being put on the terrace since the PVC tanks were placed above the partly demolished RCC tanks and that overload resulted in seepage.

4. The State Commission vide its order 31.5.2010 directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.7 lakhs to the complainant within 30 days failing which interest @ 9% p.a. was payable on the said amount.

5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, both the parties are before this Commission by way these cross appeals.

6. Admittedly, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and M/s Master Builders Technology Pvt. Ltd. The material required for water proofing was purchased directly by the opposite party and was not purchased by the complainant society. Therefore, the complainant society could not have sought any compensation from M/s Master Builders Technology Pvt. Ltd. even if the material supplied by them was substandard. It is only the opposite party which could have claimed damages from the material supplier for the substandard material supplied to it. If the seepage in the flats happened solely on account of the quality of the material, as is the case of the opposite party and not due to any deficiency in execution of the work , the opposite party has to pay compensation to the society for the work executed by it. Nothing prevents the opposite party from claiming that amount from the material supplier, alongwith interest on the sale consideration paid by it. In fact, even the compensation which the opposite party has to pay to the society can be recovered by it from the material supplied if the seepage occurred solely on account of substandard and was not attributable to any defects in the workmanship.

7. As far as the limitation is concerned, the period of limitation would start only when the defects surface and it would give a continuous cause of action to the society unless the defects are removed or the agency which executes the work flatly refuses to rectify the said defects. In the present case, the opposite party had also provided a 05 years defect liability period in the agreement executed by it. As rightly noted by the State Commission, the consumer complaint was well within limitation if the limitation starts from the end of the defect liability period. Therefore, I find no merit in the preliminary objections taken by the opposite party.

8. The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation from the opposite party or not. The answer to this question would depend upon the quality of the work executed by the opposite party. It is an admitted positon that there was seepage in several flats after the water proofing on the terrace of the society complex was done by the opposite party. The Minutes of the Meeting extracted hereinabove, leave no doubt that there were problems of seepage/leakage from the roof top and, therefore, the opposite party was required to remove those seepages/leakages. The opposite party cannot avoid its responsibility to rectify the defects even if the said defects had happened solely on account of substandard nature of the material supplied to it by MBT. As noted earlier, nothing prevents the opposite party from claiming the compensation which it will pay to the complainant from MBT if it is able to prove that seepage/leakage had happened solely on account of substandard quality of the material supplied to it by MBT.

9. The Minutes extracted hereinabove clearly shows that the rectification work was joint responsibility of the M/s MBT as well as of the opposite party. Mr. Balbir S. Chawla representative of the opposite party alongwith the representative of MBT had specifically agreed for testing and rectification of the work to the satisfaction of the society. That obviously has not been done. Therefore, the complainant society would be entitled to recover from the opposite party the amount which was actually spent on the rectification of work or which could reasonably be said to be the cost of rectification of the defective work after deducting therefrom the amount received by it from MBT.

10. No evidence was led by either party to prove the estimated cost of rectification of the seepage/leakage which had happened in several flats on account of the work executed by the opposite party. Though the complainant claimed refund of the entire amount which it had paid to the opposite party alongwith interest, such a prayer, in my opinion, could not have been granted since the complainant was entitled only to the reasonable cost of rectification of the defective work and not to the amount actually paid by it to the opposite party. If the reasonable cost of rectification of the work was less than the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party, the society was entitled to only that much amount. If the cost of rectification was more than the amount paid by the society to the opposite party, it could recover even more than the amount which it had paid to the opposite party. However, no evidence was led to prove the reasonable or actual cost of rectification of the defects found in the work. Neither the complainant society nor the opposite party examined any expert to prove the estimated cost of rectification of the seepage/leakage found in the flats.

11. The next question which arises for consideration is as to what should be the appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned counsel for the complainant states on instructions that since the rectification work was got done by individual allottees, it is not possible for the society to produce evidence to prove the said expenditure. Since the defects in the work have already been rectified, it is not possible to estimate the cost of rectification in the year 2020 when the work was executed way back in the year 2002. It is also an admitted positon that the complainant has already received a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from M/s MBT. A perusal of the agreement executed between M/s MBT and the complainant would show that while paying Rs.4 lakhs to the society, M/s MBT maintained that there was no defect in the material which it had supplied to the opposite party and that the payment was being made only as a gesture of goodwill. However, it is extremely difficult to accept that M/s MBT wold have paid a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the society without there being any defect in the material. This is more so when considered in the light of the fact that the material was purchased by the opposite party and not by the society and, therefore, there was no privity of contract between M/s MBT and the complainant society. The inevitable inference therefore would be that there was some issue with respect to the quality of the material supplied by M/s MBT and that was the reason it agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the society.

12. The case of the opposite party is that the seepage / leakage had happened on account of the quality of the material purchased from M/s MBT and not on account of any deficiency in the execution of the work. However, no expert evidence was led by the opposite party to prove that the leakage/seepage had occurred solely on account of the quality of the material supplied by M/s MBT and there was no defect in the quality of the work executed by the opposite party. It was obligatory for the opposite party to produce such an expert evidence when the leakage/seepage in the flats was an admitted positon and it had taken a stand that the said leakage/seepage had happened solely on account of the poor quality of material supplied by M/s MBT. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the leakage/seepage had happened not only on account of the quality of the material supplied by M/s MBT but also on account of defect in the quality of the work executed by the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party in my opinion, should also partly compensate the complainant society for the said leakage/seepage found in the flats allotted by the society. In any case, nothing will prev

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ent the opposite party from recovering that amount from M/s MBT if it is able to prove that the seepage/leakage had happened solely on account of the poor quality of the material supplied by M/s MBT and there was no deficiency in the quality of the work executed by it. 13. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite party M/s B & B Growing shall pay a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the complainant within three months from today alongwith interest on that amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the consumer complaint. The said amount on receipt from the opposite party alongwith the amount which it has already received from M/s MBT shall be disbursed by the society to the members who had got the seepage/leakage rectified in their respective flats. In other words, the said amount will go to the individual allottees who had to suffer on account of the seepage/leakage that happened in their flats and will not be retained by the society. The amount which the opposite party had deposited with the State Commission shall be released to the complainant along with interest, which may have accrued on that amount, to the extent the said amounts payable to the complainant in terms of this order. The balance amount, if any, shall be refunded to the opposite party. 14. Both the appeals stand disposed of.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-10-2020 UETC India Ltd., New Delhi Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-10-2020 M/s Sahara India Thru. Partner Om Prakash Srivastava & Another Versus U.O.I. Thru Secy. Ministry Of Labour, New Delhi & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
19-10-2020 G. Mahesh. & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
17-10-2020 D.B. Thapa Versus Urban Development & Housing Department High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-10-2020 A. Prasad & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
14-10-2020 T. Kavinraj Versus Union of India Represented by its Ministry of Human Resource and Development Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-10-2020 Emaar Mgf Land Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Gurpreet Gill National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-10-2020 Mahasemam Trust, A Public Trust, Rep. by its Trustee, Dr. Prabu Vairavan Prakasam Versus Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Finance Department, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-10-2020 Naresh Kumar Sinha, Company Secretary, M/s Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Jeevan Bharti, New Delhi & Others Versus Union of India Rep. By The Labour Enforcement Officer Central Tripura West & Another High Court of Gauhati
09-10-2020 Meethelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporation Affairs, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2020 New Delhi Municipal Council Versus Hari Ram Tiwari High Court of Delhi
08-10-2020 Raja Mahesh Kumar M.E. (Civil-Structural) Versus The Secretary to Govt., Housing & Urban Development Dept., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-10-2020 M/s. Wizard Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager, Mumbai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-10-2020 Mala Sahni Seth Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-10-2020 A. Kumar Versus Financial Intelligence Unit – India, New Delhi & Another Versius Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 Rikhab Jain Versus M/S. Trackon Couriers Private Limited, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-10-2020 Parul Majumdar Laskar & Others Versus The Union of India to Be Rep. By The Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
05-10-2020 M/s. Dunhill Dome Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Versus Manuel Mergulhao & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-10-2020 Tarun Kanti Chowdhury & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Bayer New Zealand Limited Versus Ministry For Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd. G-III, Amar Palace, Panchsheel Square, Dhantoli, Nagpur Versus Union of India Through its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shramshakti Bhavan, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-09-2020 Lalatendu Nayak & Another Versus Supertech Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust, Established & Namakkal Represented by Chairman, V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary Cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 M/s. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 M/s. Desai Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Shree Sainath Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Calicut, Represented by Its Manager Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
25-09-2020 Rhonpal Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus New Delhi Municipal Council & Others High Court of Delhi
23-09-2020 C.M. Gadha & Another Versus Bar Council of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
22-09-2020 The Visnagar Taluka Co-Operative Purchase & Sales Union Limited (Deleted) Versus District Registrar, Co-Op. Societies High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
22-09-2020 P.S. Dilip Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
21-09-2020 Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Versus Shanthamma & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Guptasons Jewellers & Gems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-09-2020 Advocate Thoufeek Ahamed Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary (Justice), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2020 Katherine Anne Starr Phillips Versus New Zealand Police Court of Appeal of New Zealand
15-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager Versus Girija & Another High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through The Regional Manager, New Delhi Versus Dinesh Vijay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-09-2020 Randhir Kalra Through Its President, Punjab & Another Versus Atam Nagar Co - Op. House Building Society Ltd., Punjab & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-09-2020 Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, Rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin Versus The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
09-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Represented by Its Manager, Calicut Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The Dental Council of India, Aiwan-E-Galib Marg, New Delhi Versus PSR Lakhmi Bhuvaneshwari Preethi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Karaikudi Versus Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-09-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Somwati & Others Supreme Court of India
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 M/s. Emerging India Housing Corporation Limited, Chandigarh Versus Anil Surial National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-09-2020 Diwan Chand Goyal Versus National Capital Region Transport Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
01-09-2020 M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore Versus M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Hyundai Motor India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Harshad Ramji Chauhan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust Established and Administering, Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research, Rep. by Chairman V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M. Mangalasamy Versus The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Nandanam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 New Negendra Lorry Transport Versus M/s. Telangana Foods a Government of Telangana Enterprises & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-08-2020 M/s. Omaxe Limited, New Delhi & Another Versus Divya Karun & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-08-2020 L.B.S. Group of Eduction Institute Through Its Director Shri Prateek Mathur, Rajasthan Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-08-2020 Jayantkumar Kalubhai Sagar Versus Shriram Housing Finance Ltd. & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
28-08-2020 Inter Gold India Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
26-08-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Versus Maninderjeet Singh Khera National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2020 Davinder Nath Sethi & Another Versus M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2020 Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Represented by its Vicepresident (Legal) Ch. Viswanath Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-08-2020 Gopal Krishna Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare Development, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-08-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Villupuram Versus J. Manimaran & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 R.K. Dawra Versus Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
24-08-2020 Sanjay Nayyar Versus State of NCT Delhi, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Singhla Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 Pankaj Chaudhary, HCS, Special Secretary, Public Health Engineer Department Versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
21-08-2020 Dr. Parimal Roy, Working as Director, Indian Council of Agricultural Research NIVEDI Versus The President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
20-08-2020 M.P. Kumar Versus The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 Vijay Cotton & Fibre Co., Maharashtra Versus New India Insurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 Babubhai Bhagvanji Tandel Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 V.K. Somarajan Pillai Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Govt. of India, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
18-08-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-08-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Astha Cement Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-08-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chhattisgarh & Another Versus Astu Ram & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-08-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Versus Shailendra Prasad Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Kasmikoya Biyyammabiyoda & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Home Secretary, Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
13-08-2020 Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd, New Delhi & Another Versus State of Bihar & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
12-08-2020 Abdul Saleem Pattakal & Another Versus The Director General Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, A-Wing, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
12-08-2020 Scott Christian College, Rep.by its Correspondent S. Byju Nizeth Paaul Versus The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 Surender Singh Dahiya, Additional Director, Agriculture Department, Government of Haryana (Panchkula) Versus Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
07-08-2020 M/S Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. Thru M.D. {Civil} Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Housing & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
07-08-2020 Citibank N.A., New Delhi Versus Deepanshu Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-08-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, New Delhi Versus M/s. Nalwa Investment Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
06-08-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Kottayam, Rep. by The Manager Versus O.S. Varghese & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 Peter & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala