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



M/s. Sawhney Bros., New Delhi v/s Delhi Development Authority New Delhi


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

Company & Directors' Information:- SAWHNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC056870

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

Company & Directors' Information:- SAWHNEY AND COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109DL1975PTC007931

    Criminal Misc. (M) Nos. 621 of 1980 and 251 of 1980

    Decided On, 23 May 1983

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. ANAND

    For the Petitioner: R.S. Bakshi, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ghanshyam Vashist, Advocate.



Judgment Text

These petitions under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by a common family partnership and its members are directed against two separate complaints filed by the Delhi Development Authority against the petitioners under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 in respect of the two different premises, being A-4 and A-14, Nizamuddin West, on allegation that the aforesaid premises can be used only for residential purpose and are being used by the petitioners for a commercial purpose, contrary to the provisions of the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan.


2. The petitioners are admittedly carrying on business in both the premises. Both the premises are also admittedly of a residential nature and situated in a predominantly residential locality. Prior to the institution of the present complaints, the petitioners were prosecuted by the Authority for the aforesaid offence in relation to one of the aforesaid premises, namely, A-14, Nizamuddin West. At the trial of that complaint, the petitioners set up a plea that the petitioners had applied for alternative accommodation both to the Authority and to NOIDA. In terms of the policy of the Authority contained in a public advertisement of September 18, 1976 in which the Authority had represented to the general public that the industrial units from non-conforming areas should get themselves registered with the D.D.A. or with NOIDA for allotment of plots sheds by October 15, 1976 after depositing a specified premium for allotment as per the Rules of the Authority and if they did so. They would be allowed to continue the present use till such time as the concerned Authority was in a position to give possession of the plots and/or sheds to such units. It was further urged that the petitioners had also deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in terms of the policy and that the allotment had not as yet been made by NOIDA. Evidence was produced at the trial that such a representation had been made and that the petitioners, whose address at that time was 16-A, Shankar Market, had applied for alternative accommodation to NOIDA and the petitioners had their unit at that time at A-4 Nizamuddin West. The trial court returned the finding on this material that the petitioners had applied to NOIDA for alternative accommodation and that in the advertisement issued by the Authority, it was not a condition that a unit functioning in non-conforming area was to give the address of the premises under misuse or that it could not shift to some other non-conforming area. It was further observed that if one party was having more than one unit in non-conforming areas, it was not necessary for it to apply separately for each unit. It was, therefore, held that the absence of the address of premises in question with NOIDA or the Authority at the time of the application for alternative accommodation was of no consequence and the case of the petitioners squarely fell within the four corners of the advertisement. The petitioners were accordingly acquitted by the trial court by an order of September 20, 1978. The order of acquittal was not challenged by the Authority and has, therefore, become final.


3. Notwithstanding the aforesaid acquittal, the Authority has filed the present complaints on identical allegations, one in respect of premises No. A-4, and the other in respect of premises No. A-14, Nizamuddin West. It was not seriously disputed on behalf of the Authority that in view of the acquittal of the petitioners in the earlier complaint, which was based on the misuse of A-14, Nizamuddin West, the petitioners could not be prosecuted with regard to the said premises. It was, however, faintly suggested that the offence under Section 29(2) was a continuing offence and the acquittal of the petitioners in the earlier complaint could not bar fresh prosecution. It was, however, not disputed that if the petitioners could not be prosecuted because they had deposited the amount in terms of the policy of the Authority and were still awaiting allotment of an alternative accommodation, no further prosecution could be possible until the petitioners failed to move from the premises notwithstanding the allotment or otherwise do not avail of the allotment or fail to comply with the conditions with regard to further payment in terms of the policy.


4. As regards premises No. A-4, it was however, alleged on behalf of the Authority that the earlier complaint was not concerned with A-4 and the earlier acquittal, therefore, had no impact on the present proceedings with reference to this premises. It was, however, not disputed that in the order of acquittal, premises A-4 was also mentioned as a place where the petitioners have a unit. Even otherwise, petitioners having agreed to shift to the conforming area as soon as the allotment has been made and the petitioners having complied with all the conditions laid by the Authority in that behalf, it would be improper for the Authority to prosecute the petitioners in respect of either of the two locations. Counsel for the petitioners undertakes that on the allotment being made, the petitioners would shift their activity, being carried at both the locations, to the conforming area. It would, therefore, be an abuse of the process of the court to allow the petitioners to be prosecuted in such circumstances for either of the locations.


5. Counsel for the Authority, however, sought to distinguish the circumstances of the earlier complaint and to justify the institution of the present proceedings on the ground that the policy announced in the advertisement of September 18, 1976 was subsequently modified by the Authority. The petitioners had acted on the representation of the Authority pursuant to the original policy, had deposited a substantial amount and had agreed to shift on the allotment of alternative accommodation, any subsequent change in the policy could not have retrospective effect or otherwise affect the rights and obligations of the parties. Offence with reference to the misuser stood compounded prior to the change in the policy and the subsequent change in the policy left the compounding unaffected. Even otherwise, all State action must be fair, just and reasonable and any change in policy after the petitioners had acted to their prejudice, pursuant to the earlier policy, could hardly be said to be just and reasonable.


6. A vague suggestion was made on behalf of the petitioners that the Authority had been filing thousands of complaints indiscriminately either with a view to pressurise non-conforming users to shift to conforming areas or to collect heavy fines even though the alternative accommodations have not been made available. It was further urged that the complaints are being filed in a mechanical manner, without even verifying if the non-conforming users had made deposits pursuant to the earlier pol

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

icy and were waiting for alternative allotment. It would be beyond the scope of the present proceedings for this Court to look into this aspect of the matter. It is also not possible to rule on this contention one way or the other on the existing material. I, however, do hope that these allegations are not true and that the authority exercises the necessary circumspection before launching large scale prosecutions. 7. I would, therefore, accept Crl.M(M) 621/80 and Crl.M(M) 251/80 and quash the proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 285/79 pending in the court of Shri J. P. Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate and, Criminal Case No. 147/80 pending in the Court of Shri M. L. Malik, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Order accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-06-2020 K. Shanthi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 M/s SGS Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Bihar Urban Development Agency BUDA, Patna & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
27-05-2020 Jeetha Agnes Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary To Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
22-05-2020 Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
20-05-2020 The Bank of New York Mellon, Through its attorney Navneet Singh Versus Indowind Energy Limited, Nungambakkam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 K.N. Anilkumar Versus Bar Council of India, Represented by Its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 Brij Kishore Dwivedi Versus Union of India, represented by and through the Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi in the Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Tripura
18-05-2020 Sanjay Sawhney Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Delhi
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 T. Sivakumar Versus The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, A-Wing, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 Jacob George Versus The Secretary Department of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-05-2020 Ravipati Nagasarala & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 V. Srinivas Chowdary & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Gaddam Koteswaramma Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Ibrahim Elettil, President, Dubai KMCC, Elettil, Kozhikode & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
07-05-2020 Asa Uma Farooq Versus Union of India, through its its Secrtary, Ministry of Home Afairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-05-2020 B. Abimathi Versus The Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-05-2020 Prabhu & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Housing & Urban Development, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
05-05-2020 K. Lakshmanan, Adilabad, Telangana Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Department of Defence, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
04-05-2020 Sam Uttan Versus The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
30-04-2020 Delhi Development Authority & Others Versus Pushpa Lata & Others High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 T. Hubertson Versus The Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-04-2020 United Nurses Association, Through Its State President Shoby Joseph, Thrissur Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
30-04-2020 Romesh Kumar Bajaj Versus Delhi Development Authority High Court of Delhi
27-04-2020 P. Damodhar Versus The Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited rep by its Joint Managing Director, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 Dr. Suresh & Others Versus University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
21-04-2020 T. Sivakumar Versus The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-04-2020 Dr. Mahesh Sharma & Another Versus Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Rajasthan
17-04-2020 South Durban Community Environmental Alliance Versus MEC For Economic Development, Tourism And Environmental Affairs Kwazulu-Natal Provincial Government & Another Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
09-04-2020 T. Ganesh Kumar Versus Union of India Represented by Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2020 S. Jimraj Milton Versus Union of India Represented by It's Cabinet Secretary Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2020 M. Munusamy Versus The Secretary to its Represents The Union Government of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 Civilian Welfare & Development Trust (Regd.) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
08-04-2020 N. Rajagopal Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2020 ABC Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
03-04-2020 New Delhi Television Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 Suresh Chandra Das Versus The State of Tripura to be represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Secretariat Complex, West Tripura & Another High Court of Tripura
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-03-2020 Aura Synergy India Ltd. & Another Versus M/s. New Age False Ceiling Co Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 R. Raghavan, Partner of Dinamalar Group, Dinamalar (RF) New Standard Press Annex, Trichy & Others Versus Educomp Solutions Ltd, Through its Senior Manager Nithish Kumar & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-03-2020 Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(4), Central Revenue Building, New Delhi Versus Registrar of Companies, M/s. Visual Learning Pvt. Ltd. & Others National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
19-03-2020 Shaji Purushothaman Versus Union of India, Through Ministry of Corporate Affairs, A-Wing, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Praveen Kumar Versus M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 V.K. Anusree Versus Union of India, Represented by Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary To The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others Versus M.K. Ali Kunju, Tax Assistant, O/O The Director General Income Tax (Investigation), Elamkulam & Others High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajesh Gupta Versus Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
16-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Malay Kumar Majumder & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 The Substitute Assistant Teacher's Association, New Salem Tamenglong Versus State of Manipur High Court of Manipur
16-03-2020 Kuldeep Kumar & Others Versus Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
13-03-2020 D. Sasirekha Versus The Assistant Secretary Medical Council of India Pocket-14, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 A. K. Singh, Chief Publicity Inspector, Public Relation Office, Northern Railway, New Delhi Versus General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
12-03-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., National Legal Vertical (Legal Cell), New Delhi Versus Biswadeb Koley & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 M/s. Puneet Knitwear Versus The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Through its Branch Manager B.N. Chonk, Ludhiana & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Confederation of All India Traders, New Delhi Versus Competition Commission of India, New Delhi & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
12-03-2020 Manjeet Kaur & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Government of India, Department of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
12-03-2020 V. Angayarkanni Versus Union of India, Rep, by its Secretary, Planning Commission, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
11-03-2020 Jerome Velho Versus State of Goa, through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
11-03-2020 Shaneel Rana Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry Defence, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
11-03-2020 M/s. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, R. Kirlosh Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner, Delhi Versus M/s. Sawhney Export House Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 M/s. Logical Developers Private Limited, New Delhi, Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Jose Joseph, Kochi & Another Versus M/s. Muthoot Mini Financiers Private Limited, Pathanamthitta, Represented by Its Chairman & Managing Director Roy M. Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 Fiitjee Ltd., Through Its A.R Sh. Ashish Kr. Aggarwal, New Delhi & Another Versus Puneet Garg (Minor) Through His Natural Guardian His Father Sh. Anil Kuamr, Barnala National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Mohd. Nazir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 PSR Lakshmi Bhuvaneswari Preethi Versus The Dental Council of India, Aiwan-E-Galib Marg, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Dr. S. Selvarajan Versus The Union of India, Rep. by The Secretary, Ministry of AYUSH, Earlier Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Choda Bhutia & Others Versus State of Sikkim, Through the Secretary, Human Resources & Development Department Government of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
06-03-2020 Om Prakash Swami Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 V. Gurusamy Versus The Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-03-2020 A. Namassivayam Versus Union of India, Represented by Joint Secretary (UT), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 M/s. Adani Gas Limited, SSR Corporate Park, Haryana & Another Versus Competition Commission of India, Through its Secretary, New Delhi & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 Ravindra Manik Shinde & Another Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Pondicherry Versus Vasanthi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Manvendra Pratap Singh Versus U.O.I. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-03-2020 Madhya Pradesh Housing & Infrastructure Development Board & Another Versus Vijay Bodana & Others Supreme Court of India
03-03-2020 Indian Society for Technical Education, Rep., by its Executive Secretary, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi Versus Anna University, Rep., by its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Life Insurance Corporation Of India Through Its Additional Secretary(Legal), New Delhi Versus Raj Vilas Dongre & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-03-2020 State of West Bengal Versus PAM Development Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-03-2020 Abdul Salam & Others Versus Delhi Development Authority & Another High Court of Delhi
03-03-2020 In The Matter of: Punjab National Bank, NOIDA Uttar Pradesh Versus State Bank of India Sam Brnach, New Delhi (Branch Code-04109), New Delhi & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
02-03-2020 Saurabh Pandey (Third Bail) Versus State of U.P. Thru. S.P. C.B.I./Ac-1 New Delhi High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
02-03-2020 K.P. Manoj, Senior Accounts Officer, O/O. The Accountant General (A ANS E) Kerala, Ernakulam Branch Versus The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
02-03-2020 Employees State Insurance Corporation, Represented by Its Director General, New Delhi & Others Versus Dr. P.S. Naina High Court of Kerala
02-03-2020 Birru Prathap Reddy & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
28-02-2020 Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited Through its authorized signatory, New Delhi Versus NTPC Limited Through its Chairman, New Delhi & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
28-02-2020 All India Drugs Control Officers Confederation, Rep. by its President, M. Dhilip Kumar Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others Versus M. Asiya Begum (L/SI/Exe), Arakkonam High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Idrish Ali Versus The Union of India, Rep. by the Secy. to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-02-2020 Gayathri Ravishankar Versus Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box