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



M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore v/s M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another


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

Company & Directors' Information:- ELGI EQUIPMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L29120TZ1960PLC000351

Company & Directors' Information:- M & M EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253KA2010PTC053151

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

Company & Directors' Information:- J J DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300WB1996PTC081491

Company & Directors' Information:- S V EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TG2007PTC055711

Company & Directors' Information:- L N DEVELOPMENT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102ML1986PLC002590

Company & Directors' Information:- C A G EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31902TZ1991PTC003259

Company & Directors' Information:- I P EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2008PTC186500

Company & Directors' Information:- D P EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29200KL2012PTC030841

Company & Directors' Information:- D P S DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202WB1988PTC044797

Company & Directors' Information:- J E EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29246WB1994PTC062911

Company & Directors' Information:- R S B EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112WB2003PTC096620

Company & Directors' Information:- K C EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36999GJ1987PTC009719

Company & Directors' Information:- M. I. EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253WB2008PTC127176

Company & Directors' Information:- A D M EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2009PTC194386

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

Company & Directors' Information:- A E EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29244DL2011PTC228873

Company & Directors' Information:- S R EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U96000DL1988PTC030249

Company & Directors' Information:- A G EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34201TZ2001PTC009710

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND D EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31909MH1995PTC091985

Company & Directors' Information:- S P I EQUIPMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29299TZ2010PTC015825

Company & Directors' Information:- R K P EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29150MH1976PTC019154

Company & Directors' Information:- G S EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC033877

Company & Directors' Information:- B R EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29119GJ2002PTC041233

Company & Directors' Information:- J K EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29130PN2013PTC149185

Company & Directors' Information:- S. D. TOWN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109MH2010PTC200797

Company & Directors' Information:- D C EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U28999GJ1999PTC035884

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

    Second Appeal No. 360 of 2020 & C.M.P. No. 7327 of 2020

    Decided On, 01 September 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

    For the Appellant: M.S. Krishnan, Senior Counsel for R. Bharath Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent: ----------



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2017 made in A.S.No.85 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2014 made in O.S.No.354 of 2010 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.)

1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. The second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the concurrent finding of the Courts below dismissing the suit for injunction.

3. The facts of the case is that in the year 1963 to promote industry in the area around Coimbatore District about 198 acres of land in Kurichi Village was acquired and handed over to the Coimbatore Private Industrial Estate Limited. Layout for industrial sites was formed and approved by the Director of Town Planning, Chennai, vide approval No.86/1963. Later, it was revised in the year 1971. As per the approved layout, 100 feet width road was formed and set apart for easy movement of vehicles and transportation. In the year 1970, due to lack of infrastructure, a portion of the acquired land was handed over to M/s SIDCO and Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

4. The plaintiff/appellant herein had purchased two sites falling on either side of the 100 feet road. In the year 2000, when the plaintiff wanted to expand its factory due to shortage of accommodation, it had occupied 100 feet road laying in between two plots. When the first respondent herein the Town Development Authority caused notice of eviction on 05.05.2010 to remove the eviction, suit has been filed seeking declaration that the impugned notice dated 05.05.2010 issued by the first respondent is void, illegal and unenforceable and permanent injunction. The claim of the plaintiff is that the said 100 feet road earmarked in between its two factory sites never used by any one right from the formation of layout since approach to the road on the western side was blocked by a waterbody.

5. The first respondent had filed a written statement narrating the sequence of facts and the pendency of a writ petition before the High Court seeking Mandamus to maintain the public roads in the subject property as per the original approved plan. Further, in the written statement it was stated that the plaintiff by force has blocked the 100 feet road without any right, title and interest causing hindrance to the general public. The resolution of the 2nd respondent relied by the plaintiff was termed as falsehood.

6. When the suit was taken up for trial after framing issues, the defendants did not participate. However, the trial Court, on perusing the evidence placed before it, has considered the pleadings and exhibits and dismissed the suit as not maintainable, since it is contrary to law. The trial Court has observed that there is no locus standi for the plaintiff to usurp the property which belong to a quasi- Government authority the plaintiff has no legs to stand even in the absence of the defendants actively participating in the suit proceedings.

7. When the matter was taken up on appeal, the first appellate Court concurred the view of the trial Court and confirmed the trial Court judgment of the dismissal. In the second appeal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant strenuously argued that the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that the public road earmarked as 100 feet road was never handed over to the localbody. The land in dispute was conveyed to the plaintiff, vide Exs.A1 to A6. Therefore, it is valid in eye of law. The impugned notice dated 05.05.2010 marked as Ex.A8 is issued by the first respondent without any authority. The promoter namely, M/s Coimbatore Private Industrial Estate Limited did not execute any gift deed or sale deed in favour of the localbody and the 100 feet road earmarked in the old layout never been put to use for more than 35 years. While the 2nd defendant had regularised the buildings of the plaintiff factory after collecting regularisation charges, the first defendant has no authority to question the usage of the land in dispute branding the plaintiff as an encroacher.

8. The property in dispute is admittedly a public property which was acquired for a particular purpose. Lay out was formed and the piece of land claimed by the plaintiff is part of 100 feet road as per the approved lay out. While so, the surrender of a portion of land from the original acquired extent or nonusage of that land cannot give any right to the neighbouring plot owners to encroach upon the public road, namely 100 feet road. For the reason best known the first defendant, after filing its counter ,has not actively participated in the trial. However, the facts are found in the written statement. In any event, it is for the plaintiff to stand or fall on its own leg.

9. Before the trial Court, 10 exhibits were marked. Out of which, six sale deeds relied by the plaintiff are all photocopies. They are in respect of the factory site and not in respect of the 100 feet road. The claim of the plaintiff over the 100 feet road has not backed by any valid document. 198 acres of land was acquired from the public by the Government for formation of industry. The Coimbatore Private Industrial Estate Limited was formed for promoting the industrial estate. Apart from the plaintiff, there are other allottees and beneficiaries of the 100 feet road. Detrimental to their interest no one including the promoters can convey the area earmarked for public access.

10. The Courts below have considered the facts and has rightly held that the plaintiff has no right to encroach upon the public road and question the authority of the first respondent while causing notice to evict. The first appellate Court while confirming the judgment of the trial Court has re-appreciated the evidence before it in the following words:-

“On the side of the plaintiff to substantiate their case prima facie, the xerox copy of sale deeds have been marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 through PW-1. The Ex.A8 is the impugned notice issued by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff for which the copy of the reply given is marked as Ex.A9. The copy of board resolution is marked as Ex.A10. It is only the xerox copy of Regularization orders (6 nos.) passed by the 2nd defendant in respect of the suit property attain some importance and also the Ex.A7 regularisation orders are also in respect of the properties purchased by the plaintiff and they have got no relevance to the subject matter of the suit namely the road. There is no logic in contending that the plaintiff happened to be the purchaser of the properties annexed the road passing through them. More so, the claim of the plaintiff has been stoutly opposed by the 1st defendant by contending in its written statement that the Coimbatore Industrial Estate had not handed over the road portions to Kurichi Panchayat taking advantage of the G.O.No.719 Industries Department dated 13.07.1990. The Coimbatore Private Industrial Estate did not apply for a revised layout; the modified plan approved by the 2nd defendant that is Kurichi Town Panchayat contradiction to the approved plan is not valid as per the Development Control Rule No.4 for Kurichi New Town Department area which came in existence from 1992 under Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.”

11. In sofar as the reference to the writ petition made in the judgment of the Courts below, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the said writ petition was withdrawn. In view of this Court, the said w

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rit petition has no bearing to decide the suit. The Courts below have referred the said writ petition only to highlight that there are other interested parties, who are aggrieved by ameliorating the 100 feet road by encroachers, which was part of the approved lay out. Whether the road area gifted to local body or not, the allottees cannot encroach over it in connivance with the promoters or others, which will affect the 3rd party interest who have right of access through the 100 feet road. Therefore, this Court finds there is no Substantial Question of Law involved in this second appeal to entertain against the concurrent finding of the Courts below. 12. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decree of the Courts below are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

08-10-2020 C. Rajakumari & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Industries (MIA), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-10-2020 M/s. Thamraparni Enterprises, Rep. by its Partner K.S. Sundaram Versus M/s. Simpson and Company Ltd., Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Chennai 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
06-10-2020 State of kerala, Rep. by Tahsildar, Kothamangalam Versus The Secretary, Nirmalgram Vannith Dairy Central Society Keerampara, Kothamangalam & Others High Court of Kerala
05-10-2020 M/s. CEE DEE Yes IT Parks Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Chennai Versus The Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Supervision, Represented by its Chief General manager-in-charge, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2020 Tarun Kanti Chowdhury & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-10-2020 A. Mohammed Ataulla & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by the SPP, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Naveen Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
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 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 M/s. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-09-2020 Yashwanth @ Yashavant Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
25-09-2020 Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, (Presently NLC India Limited), Rep. by its General Manager (Contracts) Corporate Office, Neyveli Versus M/s. TENOVA India Pvt. Ltd., Alwarpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2020 Rhonpal Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus New Delhi Municipal Council & Others High Court of Delhi
25-09-2020 Mallappa & Another Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
24-09-2020 Yogesh Agarwal & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. herein by: The Investigation Officer Cyber Crime Police Station (CID), Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
24-09-2020 Raghavan & Another Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 Maharudragouda Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Ranebennur Town Police, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
23-09-2020 Rajegowda @ Guruswamy & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 C.M. Gadha & Another Versus Bar Council of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 Nagalakshmi (died) & Another Versus Sivaprakasam, Rep.by his Power Agent and his wife Senthamil Selvi High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Heer A. Rajani, Rep. by her Power of Attorney Amit M. Rajani Versus M.M. Syed Sikkander, Proprietor: M/s. Syed Bearing Centre, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Tousif Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
22-09-2020 Ramesh Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
21-09-2020 Shivanand Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary Dept. of Revenue, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Yellappa Versus The Management of NWKRTC, Rep. by its Divisional Controller, Gadag High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
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
21-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Jantra Wanida & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Versus Shanthamma & Another High Court of Karnataka
19-09-2020 National Investigation Agency Chikoti Garden, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by A.G. Kaiser Versus Vinay Talekar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-09-2020 K. Murugan: Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2547/15 T. Velladurai, Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2548/15, Versus The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office, Alangulam & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-09-2020 B. Ramamoorthy & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 M/s. Standard Metalloys Private Limited, through its Authorised Signatory Sumit Tripathi Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-09-2020 Thankappan Pillai Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
17-09-2020 Vangamudi Kasimayan, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., rep PP. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-09-2020 Anandi Versus State, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
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
17-09-2020 Mahasamy Versus Minor Prakash, Rep. By his father & natural guardian Rajendran, Tiruppur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-2020 R. Pradeep Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 Makdum @ Makdum Shariff Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by HCGP, Bangalore 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
15-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager Versus Girija & Another High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 P.C. Latha & Others Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
14-09-2020 Sapna Chouhan & Another Versus State, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Zameer Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
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 Kuruva Muliniti Lakshmana, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., Rep. PP. Hyd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
14-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its President, Kanchipuram Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its Senior Manager(Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 Mukund Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2020 B.S. Yediyurappa Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2020 M/s. S.M. Cement Industries Rep. By One of Its Partners Namely, Manoj Sureka, Assam Versus Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Gauhati
11-09-2020 Shyam Investments, Rep. by its Partner Nina Reddy & Another Versus Masti Health & Beauty Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 Amarendra Bhagawati Versus The State of Assam Rep. By The Comm. & Secy., Deptt. of Excise, Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Ghy.-06 & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 G. Chitra Poornima & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by Under Secretary Revenue Department & Others High Court of Karnataka
10-09-2020 Punitha Versus State by Turuvekere Police Turuvekere, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
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
10-09-2020 A. Sudharani Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-09-2020 Santosh @ Sada Mahadev Chand Rakodi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
09-09-2020 Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nagpur Versus Laxman Seetaram Neulkar & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-09-2020 Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service, Rep. by its Authorized Representative J. Anjananandan Versus The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
09-09-2020 R. Bharaneeswaran Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Collector of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam Versus Janaki High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Jai Bharath College of Management & Engineering Technology, Rep. by Its Chairman, Ernakulam & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Trivandrum & Others 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 Suneeta Sharma Versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Punjab & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-09-2020 Sir Venkatramanaswamy Blue Metals, Rep by its Managing Partner, M. Sivanandam & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Karur & 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
07-09-2020 The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai Versus P. Muthian High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Y. Devadas Versus State of Telangana, Rep., by Special Chief Secretary, Education Dept., Government of Telangana & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 K. Ebnezer Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Saluvadi Sumalatha Versus The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (TREI-RB) rep., by its, Executive Officer (Convenor) & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Natarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Govt. Dept. of Municipal Admin & Water Supply, City V, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Alfadul Sobhi & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
04-09-2020 K. Ravi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Labour & Employment, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
03-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai. Another Versus S. Manikandan High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 Kothapalli Govinda Rajulu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
03-09-2020 Taba Tagar Versus The State of Arunachal Pradesh Rep. By Its Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh & Others High Court of Gauhati
03-09-2020 Meharaj @ Meharaj Begum Versus State by K.G. Halli P.S., Rep. by Government Pleader High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 F. Srilekha & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by S.P.P., Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 Yedla Babulu & Others Versus State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (J.A & L.A), T.S. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-09-2020 M. Ravi & Others Versus State by Vishwanathapura P.S., Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 G.C. Kishor Kumar Versus Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras