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



M/s. Lanco Hills Technology Park Pvt Ltd. v/s Manisha Balkrishna Kulkarni & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- LANCO HILLS TECHNOLOGY PARK PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2004PTC044097

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

Company & Directors' Information:- P & A TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45208OR2011PTC014269

    Civil Appeal No. 155 of 2015

    Decided On, 17 December 2019

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

    For the Appellant: Deepak Khurana, Tejasv Anand, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Advocates. For the Respondents: D. Bharathi Reddy, D. Tejaswi Reddy, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Admit.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dated 9 October 2014 in Consumer Complaint No 112 of 2014.

3. An agreement to sell was executed between the appellant and the respondents on 21 March 2011 under which the respondents agreed to purchase an apartment in a complex which was developed by the appellant in Hyderabad. The total consideration was Rs. 1,55,50,826. Subsequently, an amount of Rs. 6,00,000 was paid towards an additional parking space. Under Clause 5.1(iii) of the agreement, possession of the apartment was to be handed over to the respondents by 28 March 2011, with a grace period of three months. Clause 8 of the agreement contemplated that the period of possession would be extended during the operation of a force majeure event. The appellant received a no-objection certificate from the State Disaster Response and Fire Services Department on 4 July 2011. The final occupancy certificate for the residential tower in which the apartment was situated was issued by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited on 22 August 2011.

4. Though the agreement contemplated that possession would be handed over on 28 March 2011 with a grace period of three months, it appears that on 28 March 2011 a restraining order was issued by the State Waqf Tribunal as a result of a dispute in relation to a part of the land on which the project was being developed. The order of the Waqf Tribunal was upheld by the High Court on 3 April 2012. However, on 8 May 2012, the order of injunction was vacated by this Court. On 15 October 2012, the appellant informed the respondents that the apartment would be ready for occupation on 3 November 2012 and followed this up with communications dated 5 November 2012, 20 December 2012 and 7 February 2013. By the communication dated 20 December 2012, the appellant recorded that all the deficiencies which had been noticed by the respondents had been cleared. Eventually, a sale deed was executed on 11 February 2013 and the sale transaction was completed and registered. The total consideration inclusive of the cost of the parking space was Rs. 1,61,50,826. The respondents had paid 85% of the total agreed consideration under the agreement to sell while the balance was paid, together with the execution of the sale deed.

5. The dispute between the parties relates to the claim of the respondents that despite the execution of the sale deed, possession was not handed over. The respondents moved a consumer complaint before the NCDRC seeking a direction for the handing over of physical possession, together with interest and damages for delayed delivery.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings, possession of the apartment was handed over to the respondents on 28 August 2014. A document which is styled as "the Keys Hand Over Form" records that all three sets of keys were handed over to the representative of the respondents.

7. The NCDRC disposed of the consumer complaint by its judgment and order dated 8 October 2014. The NCDRC directed the appellant to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 5 per sq ft for the delay of six months, at the agreed contractual rate. There is a direction to pay compensation at the rate of 18% per annum for the delay beyond six months for which no specific provision was contained in the agreement between the parties.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant placed reliance on the provisions contained in the sale deed which was executed on 11 February 2013. Clause 3 of the sale deed contains a stipulation of possession being handed over in the following terms:

"3. Possession

Simultaneously, upon the execution of this Sale Deed and the full receipt of the total consideration, the Vendor has and the Purchasers acknowledge that the Vendor has handed over the physical, vacant, lawful and peaceful possession of the Scheduled Property."

Hence, it has been submitted that upon handing over of possession, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation to the respondents.

9. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that despite the above stipulation in the sale deed, the fact of the matter is that there were numerous deficiencies in the apartment which was agreed to be sold even at the stage when the sale deed was executed. Hence, it has been submitted that it was only on 28 August 2014 that possession was handed over, as is evidenced by the document which was executed between the parties.

10. The agreement to sell contained a stipulation in Clause 5.1(iii) to the effect that the appellant would hand over the possession of the apartment by 28 March 2011 and, in any event, within a grace period of three months thereafter. The grace period expired on 28 June 2011. The agreement contained a stipulation to the effect that:

"In the event of occurrence of a Force Majeure Event in terms of Clause 8 of this Agreement, the period of possession will be automatically extended for such period that the Force Majeure Event subsists. In the event of any delay beyond the time stated above the Developer shall pay the Purchaser an amount of Rs. 5 (Rupees Five Only) per square foot of the Super built up area of the Residential Unit for every month of delay up to a maximum of 6 months".

11. The record indicates that between 28 March 2011, when the restraining order was passed by the Waqf Tribunal, and 8 May 2012, when the injunction was vacated by this Court, the appellant was prohibited from handing over of possession or alienating any part of the property. One of the force majeure events stipulated in Clause 8 of the agreement is to the following effect:

"(iv) any notice, order, rules, notification of the Government and/or other public or competent authority, including any prohibitory order of any court against development of property;"

Hence, in terms of the stipulation contained in Clause 5.1(iii), the period for handing over of the possession stood extended during the prevalence of the force majeure event. After the injunction was vacated by this Court on 8 May 2012, the appellant had, in terms of the grace period of three months, time until 8 August 2012. Thereafter, for a period of six months ending on 8 February 2013, the appellant was subject to the requirement of paying compensation at Rs. 5 per sq ft. The agreement stipulated that this would be for a delay of up to a maximum of six months. The period of six months ended on 8 February 2013. The agreement did not make any specific provision for the period thereafter.

12. The respondents had paid 85% of the agreed consideration, together with the agreement to sell, and even the balance at the time when the sale deed was executed on 11 February 2013. Having paid the consideration, it was evidently not in their interest to delay the receipt of possession. Though the sale deed records that possession was handed over, it is clear from the contemporaneous record that it was only on 28 August 2014 that all the sets of keys of the apartment were handed over to the respondents. Consequently, the appellant would be liable to pay reasonable compensation to the respondents for the period between 9 February 2013 and 28 August 2014, in addition to the contractual payment due for the period between 8 August 2012 and 8 February 2013.

13. However, we are of the view that the direction to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum is excessive and accord

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ingly has to be scaled down. Adopting a rate of 6% as a broad guideline, we have computed the compensation at a lump sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to obviate any dispute on computation. 14. We accordingly issue the following directions: (i) For the period between 8 February 2012 and 8 February 2013, the appellant shall pay compensation in terms of Clause 5.1(iii) of the agreement to sell at the rate of Rs. 5 per sq ft; (ii) For the period between 9 February 2013 and 28 August 2014, the compensation which is payable by the appellant to the respondents is computed at a lump sum of Rupees Ten Lakhs. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within a period of one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

14-07-2020 Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering & Technology & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
19-06-2020 The Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur & Another Versus Dr. Subroto Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-05-2020 O.R. Rahul & Others Versus Indian Institute of Space Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement, Roving Squad, Chengalpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 M.G. Narasimha Rao Versus The Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-05-2020 Score Information Technology Ltd. Versus Central Organisation, Ex-Serviceman Contributory Health Scheme High Court of Delhi
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Labour And Two Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Appellate Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Jayakumar Assistant Professor-Cum-Assistant Director, Centre For Social Exclusion & Inclusion, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus Dr. Jyothi S. Nair & Others High Court of Kerala
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Dr.(Mrs) Sania Akhtar, Working as Principal Director (Senior Principal Scientist), Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology SARP, Bangalore Versus The Director General, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers, Guindy, Chennai & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
05-03-2020 Dinesh Kumar Rao Versus G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
04-03-2020 Anil Ramdas Pawar V/S Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-03-2020 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Limited V/S Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit-1 Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 S. Aruputharaj Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Education, Science & Technology, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit-I & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Rep. by its Chairman, Er.A. Mohamed Yunus, Trichy & Others Versus The Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Guindy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Anna University Campus, Chennai Versus Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Namakkal & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Daniel Oommen Versus National Institute of Technology, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
12-02-2020 Richa Jindal Versus Pec University of Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-02-2020 Achal Bisht Versus Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management & Catering Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
05-02-2020 Rasi Travels & Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd., A company having its Registered Office at Janpath, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Syndicate Bank V/S Narayanadri Institute of Science And Technology and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
17-01-2020 Masaddar Ali Laskar, Officer Surveyor, Office of the Director GDC, Assam Nagaland, GDC Versus The Union of India, Through the Secretary, To the Government of India, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-01-2020 The Principal , Global Institute of Fashion Technology (GIFT) & Another Versus Bikramadittya Sai & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-01-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, "Aaykar Bhavan" Versus Gigabyte Technology (India) Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
06-01-2020 Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi Versus Shibu M. Job, Now Working as Director (Postal Life Insurance), Kolkatha & Others High Court of Kerala
11-12-2019 D.R. College of Engg. & Technology, College Campus at V&PO Kakoda Versus Nitin Parashar Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
02-12-2019 Basava Engineering School of Technology Rep. by its Principal B.J. Patil Versus State of Karnataka Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Department of Technical Education High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
26-11-2019 Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Salem Versus The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 The Registrar, National Institute of Fashion Technology, N.I.F.T. Campus, Taramani, Chennai & Another Versus Sam D. Raja Prabhu & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2019 Biju Borah Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-11-2019 Majaffar Hussain Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-11-2019 Ranjit Sukla Baidya, Tripura Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Post, Ministry of Communication & Technology, Government of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
29-10-2019 K.A. Mohammed Manikfan, Junior Scientific Officer, Department of Science & Technology, Kavaratti Versus Union of India, Rep. by The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti & Others High Court of Kerala
23-10-2019 Teledata Technology Solutions Versus Official Liquidator High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-10-2019 R. Rajkumar & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
26-09-2019 Snehacharya Institute of Management & Technology Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
11-09-2019 Ramsay Exim & Technology Private Limited & Others ICICI Bank Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-09-2019 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-08-2019 Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair, Rtd. Professor & Director of School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
20-08-2019 Sudhan Ranjan Bhowmik Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Ministry of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
19-08-2019 Bharti Airtel Limited & Another Versus Maharashtra Information Technology Corporation Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-08-2019 Software Technology Parks of India, Chennai Versus Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-08-2019 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Department, Secretariat, Guntur District & Others Versus R.V. Prakash High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-08-2019 Tapas Malakar Versus The Union of India Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Government of India, Central Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Tripura
02-08-2019 Global Institute of Fashion Technology (G.I.F.T) Versus Shaista Parveen West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
31-07-2019 M.J.R. College of Engineering & Technology, Rep., by its Principal, G.V. Ramu & Another Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Corporation Bank, Damalacheruvu Rep., by its Branch Manager, Sudhir Kumar Dubey High Court of Andhra Pradesh
26-06-2019 Apeejay Institute of Technology School of Architecture & Planning & Another Versus Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University & Others Supreme Court of India
25-06-2019 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Larger Taxpayer Unit, Nungambakkam High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-06-2019 Hindustan College of Science & Technology Versus All India Council for Technical Education & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-06-2019 Sri Nandhanam College of Engineering and Technology, Molagarampatti, Tiruppattur, Rep. by its Chairman, P.M.N. Mohan Krishnaa Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2019 The Cochin Institute of Science & Technology, Ettappally, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Principal Dr. S.R. Deepa Versus Jisin Jijo & Others High Court of Kerala
03-06-2019 The Director, Rajagiri School of Engineering & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
03-06-2019 Kiran Murali & Another Versus Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., (A Company incorporate under the Companies Act, 1956) Having its Office at Softward Technology Park, Electronics Complex, Madhya Pradesh & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-05-2019 Sagnik Pal & Others Versus National Institute of Technology, Agartala & Others High Court of Tripura
28-05-2019 M/s. Teleecare Network India Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
23-05-2019 Kamal Sharma & Others Versus Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
14-05-2019 Ram Govind Institute of Technology, Mahuvan, Koderma Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
08-05-2019 M/s. Ipjacket Technology India Versus M.D. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-05-2019 Anuradha Chakraborty Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
02-05-2019 Medirad Tech India Limited & Another Versus Technology Development Board High Court of Delhi
30-04-2019 Ind Trust Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Versus Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-04-2019 Immanuel Arasar International Institute of Science & Technology Educational Charitable Trust rep. by its Founder Trustee Sam G.Jebajoselin Versus The Regional Officer, Southern Regional Office, AICTE & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-04-2019 Ashutosh Bansal Versus Birla Institute of Management & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-04-2019 Akshansh Gupta Versus Department of Science & Technology & Others High Court of Delhi
05-04-2019 VESTAS Wind Technology India Private Limited, (Production Business Unit), Rep. by V.P/Factory Manager, Chennai Versus M. Arul Prakasam & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 Binud Sonowal Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
01-04-2019 Lakhidhar Das Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
01-04-2019 Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited & Another Versus M/s. Inox Renewables Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-04-2019 Kerlinmon Kharshandi, SP (HQ), Itanagar Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of Post of Revenue Central Board of Excise, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
28-03-2019 S.K. Shivakumar, Junior attendant, Central Library, IIT Madras Versus The Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-03-2019 In the Matter of: M/s. APM Group Limited Versus M/s. Adept Technology Private Limited National Company Law Tribunal Chennai
22-03-2019 P. Muhammed Abdul Gafoor Versus The Secretary to The Government, Government of Kerala, Information Technology Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-03-2019 D. Thulaseedharan Nair Versus Mohandas College of Engineering & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
15-03-2019 The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune - III Versus B.J. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-03-2019 Dr. V. Madhu Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology (Cusat), Represented by Its Registrar & Another High Court of Kerala
07-03-2019 Birla Institute of Technology Versus State of Jharkhand & Others Supreme Court of India
25-02-2019 CNH Industrial (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Tirth Agro Technology Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
20-02-2019 Jogesh Das Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Telecommunication & Information Technology, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
20-02-2019 Atul Kumar Mittal Versus Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Through its Registrar & Others High Court of Delhi
31-01-2019 Vellore Institute of Technology, (Deemed University), Represented by its Chancellor, Vellore Versus The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-01-2019 M/s. Velammal Institute of Technology, Represented by its Chairman “Velammal Knowledge Park”, Thiruvallur Versus The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2019 Bijit Boro Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
16-01-2019 Binay Bhattacharyya Versus The Proprietor, Gandhi Institute of Management & Technology Prop. Sarbani Das West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
10-01-2019 E.K. Shahabudeen Versus Union of India Represented by the Secretary to Government of India & Director General of Posts, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
09-01-2019 Birla Institute of Technology Versus State of Jharkhand & Others Supreme Court of India
09-01-2019 Win Information Technology Versus Dcit, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad
08-01-2019 Monsanto Technology LLC Thru The Authorised Representative Ms. Natalia Voruz & Others Versus Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. Thru The Director & Others Supreme Court of India
07-01-2019 Birla Institute of Technology Versus State of Jharkhand & Others Supreme Court of India
03-01-2019 The Chairman, College of Engineering & Technology, Harshith Group of Institutions Versus Syed Yousuf Nasheed & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
03-01-2019 Sanjay Sarkar Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
02-01-2019 M/s. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. Versus Software Technology Parks of India, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2018 Md. S. Rahman & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
03-12-2018 Union of India Represented by The Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, (Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India) Trivandrum Versus Advanced Polymer Technology, Represented by Its Power of Attorney Holder, Rajiv Kumar & Others High Court of Kerala
03-12-2018 Asha TM (USN: 1SP13EC010) & Others Versus Principal S.E.A. College of Engineering & Technology & Others High Court of Karnataka
30-11-2018 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Rajeev Gandhi Institute of Petroleum Technology Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lucknow
27-11-2018 Mohit Mahajan Versus Foundation For Innovation & Technology Transfer (FITT) & Others High Court of Delhi
22-11-2018 Debajit Patar Versus Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati