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



Najeeb, Thiruvananthapuram District, Represented by His Power of Attorney Holder Sajeela v/s The Maintenance Tribunal, Represented by The Presiding Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- M POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31908MH2012PTC234343

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER AND POWER PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U31300AS1989PTC003282

Company & Directors' Information:- S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19202DL1986PTC026505

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31102WB1983PTC036315

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER-X PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1970PTC005331

    WP(C). No. 41379 of 2017

    Decided On, 28 June 2018

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

    For the Petitioner: P. Anoop (Mulavana), Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, R2, Saigi Jacob Palatty, Government Pleader, R3, R.B. Rajesh, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P-1 order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the 1st respondent and Ext.P-6 order dated 07.12.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 3rd respondent, who is his mother in terms of the provisions contained in the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The 3rd respondent (mother of the petitioner), had filed application for maintenance and other reliefs under the provisions contained in the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The claim in that regard made by the 3rd respondent was entertained by the 1st respondent Tribunal presided over by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram and it was ordered as per impugned Ext.P-1 order dated 24.01.2017 that the petitioner should pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 3rd respondent, who is his mother. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner had filed Ext.P-2 appeal dated 17.04.2017 before the 2nd respondent Appellate Tribunal presided over by the District Collector, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 16(1) of the abovesaid Act. Ext.P-2 appeal has now been rejected by the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority as per the impugned Ext.P-6 order dated 07.12.2017 on the ground that appeal as conceived in Section 16 could be maintained only by the aggrieved senior citizen/parent concerned and not by the respondent in such a claim before the original authority who had directed to pay the maintenance. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

'i) Issue a writ of certiorari and call for the records and quash Ext P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to take up the appeal u/s 16(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 filed by the petitioner and hear the same on merits.

iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'

2. Heard Sri.P.Anoop Mulavana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.R.B.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.3 and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

3. One of the main issues that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether an appeal could be maintained by person like the petitioner who is the respondent in the Maintenance Claim before the Original Tribunal, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the abovesaid Act. Section 16 of the Act provides as follows :

'16.Appeals.-(1) Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal:

Provided that on appeal, the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of such maintenance order shall continue to pay to such parent the amount so ordered, in the manner directed by the Appellate Tribunal:

Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

(2) On receipt of an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal shall, cause a notice to be served upon the respondent.

(3) The Appellate Tribunal may call for the record of proceedings from the Tribunal against whose order the appeal is preferred.

(4) The Appellate Tribunal may, after examining the appeal and the records called for either allow or reject the appeal.

(5) The Appellate Tribunal shall, adjudicate and decide upon the appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal and the order of the Appeallate Tribunal shall be final:

Provided that no appeal shall be rejected unless an opportunity has been given to both the parties of being heard in person or through a duly authorized representative.

(6) The Appellate Tribunal shall make an endeavour to pronounce its order in writing within one month of the receipt of an appeal.

(7) A copy of every order made under sub-section (5) shall be sent to both the parties free of cost.'

4. A plain reading of Section 16 of the Act, more particularly Sub-sec.(1) thereof would make it clear that the appeal as conceived in that provision could be maintained only if the senior citizen or parent, who is the claimant before the Tribunal, is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal and not at the instance of the respondent in the application before the Tribunal.

5. However, Sri.P.Anoop Mulavana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment dated 28.05.2014 rendered by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case in Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2014 P&H 121=2014 KHC 3407, paras 21 and 22, which reads as follows :

'21- A. An appeal is envisaged "against the order of the Tribunal". This is how S.15 reads. It does not say an appeal only by a senior citizen or parent. However, sub section (1) of S.16 refers to any senior citizen or parent "aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal". This seeks to give an impression on a plain reading as if only a senior citizen or parent can prefer an appeal and, thus, restricting the appeal to only one set of party, while denying the right of appeal to the oppostie side who are liable to maintain. However, this is not followed by the first proviso which deals with the operation of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal and clarifies that the pendency of the appeal will not come in any manner in the way of the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of any such order to continue to pay the amount. Now it can hardly be envisaged that in an appeal filed by the senior citizen or parent, there could be a question of absence of stay. Such absence of stay was only envisaged where the appeal is preferred by a children or relative. It is that eventuality the proviso deals with. The proviso is, thus, consistent with what has been set out in S.15 of the said Act.

22. The petitioners assailed the provisions of sub section (1) of S.16 of the said Act on the ground that there cannot be a right to appeal only to one of the affected parties, as anomalous situation would be created against the same order with which both the parties may be aggrieved i.e. where a greater or lesser claim is made in relation to any property or maintenance, as one party being the senior citizen or parent would prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, while the party which is liable to give maintenance would have to take recourse to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. Thus, two paralleal proceedings in the different forums qua the same order would arise. The submission, thus, is that these provisions should be struck down as ultra-vires, the intent of the other provisions of the said Act or the constitutional scheme. In the alternative the provision should be read down to make it consistent with the other provisions and, thus, confer a right of appeal even to the other affected party."

However, the learned Sr.Government Pleader has brought to the notice of this Court that the Gujarat High Court in the judgment in Rajeshkumar Bansraj Gandhi and another v. State of Gujarat and others reported in AIR 2016 Guj. 129 = 2016 KHC 3804 has categorically held that going by the provisions contained in Section 16 of the abovesaid Act, appeal could be maintained only in case, the parent/senior citizen concerned is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal and that in case, the respondent in the application before the Tribunal is having any grievance in respect of the order that is passed by the Tribunal in favour of the parent/senior citizen, then such a party cannot maintain an appeal under Section 16 of the Act. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that the plain and simple language employed by the legislature in Sec.16 is very clear and categoric. Moreover, the said provision would make it abundantly clear that the very intention of the legislature to enact such a provision is to ensure speedy and efficacious adjudication of such claims in relation to the grievances of parents/senior citizens as conceived in the Act and that only in a case where the senior citizen or parent is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, that an appeal could be instituted and in case the respondent in the application filed before the Tribunal is having any grievance, then he is not facilitated to prefer an appeal as per the Act. In this view of the matter, this Court respectfully is not inclined to concur with the views in the abovesaid judgment in Paramjit Kumar Saroya's case (supra) reported in AIR 2014 P&H 121=2014 KHC 3407. Accordingly, the abovesaid contentions raised by the petitioner that the impugned Ext.P-6 appellate order is liable to be set aside and that Ext.P-2 appeal is liable to be remitted to the 2nd respondent-Appellate Tribunal etc., is untenable. So the challenge against Ext.P-6 order cannot be entertained by this Court. However, there is one aspect in the matter as no appellate remedy is conferred on a party who is the respondent in the application before the Tribunal, in case, he is aggrieved by the orders passed by that Tribunal in favour of the senior citizen/parent concerned. Then such an aggrieved party could maintain a petition under Art.226 and/or Art.227 of the Constitution of India provided, he/she can make out valid grounds for sustaining such a challenge in those proceedings in view of the legal principles importable from decisions of the Apex Court in cases as in State of Punjab and another v. Jalour Singh and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660, L.Chandrakumar v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1997 SCC 1125=1997 (3) SCC 261.

6. Sri.P.Anoop Mulavana, learned counsel for the petitioner would then make an alternative plea that this Court may interfere with the impugned Ext.P-1 order passed by the 1st respondent Tribunal, as it is illegal and improper etc. On going through the pleadings and the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the 1st respondent-Tribunal has passed a considered order after taking into account the rival submissions on both sides and then has come to a considered conclusion that the 3rd respondent (mother), is entitled for a maintenance of Rs.5,000/-. A vague plea has been taken up by way of grounds in the writ petition that the 1st respondent should have heard the petitioner before the passing of the impugned Ext.P-1 order. There is no clear assertion in the grounds urged by the petitioner that as a matter of fact he or his representative was never offered an opportunity of hearing by the Tribunal etc. All what is stated in ground (D) of the W.P(C) is that before passing Ext.P-1 order, the 1st respondent-Tribunal should have heard the petitioner and that only a report was called for, which is evident from Ext.P-1 order and the same is illegal and improper. Sri.R.B.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit on the basis of instructions from his party that both sides were permitted to make their respective submissions and sufficient opportunity was given to both sides and it is only thereafter, the 1st respondent Tribunal has passed the considered order as per Ext.P-1. A reading of Ext.P-1 would make it clear that the petitioner’s representative (his wife), Smt.Sajeela, was present in the hearing before the 1st respondent Tribunal as the authorized officer of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has been working abroad and therefore, it is in this context that the petitioner would have authorized his wife to appear before the Tribunal. Sufficient opportunity has been given to both sides before the Tribunal has passed the order as Ext.P-1. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to countenance the present plea made by the petitioner that Ext.P-1 order is liable to be interfered with by exercise of the prerogative powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. However, Sri.P.Anoop Mulavana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the meagre income that is earned by the petitioner from his employment in Saudi Arabia is hardly 1200 Saudi Riyals which comes hardly appearing to Rs.22,000/- and that it is extremely disproportionate on the part of the Tribunal to have ordered and burdened the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-, as he finds it extremely difficult to maintain himself and his wife and other family members. To a specific query raised by this Court as to whether the petitioner had raised such a plea about this limited income before the 1st respondent-Tribunal, the petitioner has stated that he had not taken up that factual plea before the Tribunal. If that be so, it is not right and proper for this Court to entertain such a new plea that is put forward for the first time before this Court and not before the original Tribunal.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Therefore, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be justified and proper, in the light of such factual aspects. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that the 3rd respondent (mother) has also separately filed an application for maintenance before the Family Court, Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram district as M.C.No.173/2018 claiming monthly maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/-. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that he has no specific instruction on that regard and as such a plea has not been taken up either before the Tribunal or before this Court in this W.P(C), he is unable to defend as against such a new factual plea urged for the first time now orally before this Court. However, this Court would venture to observe that if as a matter of fact the 3rd respondent has filed any application for maintenance before any other forum like the Family Court etc., such court should duly take note of the fact that the petitioner has already been burdened to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- as per the present impugned Ext.P-1 order issued by the 1st respondent-Tribunal under the provisions of the abovesaid Act. 8. In the light of these aspects, this Court is of the view that no interference is called for and the prayers in the writ petition are only to be rejected. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

27-07-2020 M/s. Sainath Security Force & Man Power Service, Represented by its Proprietor B.S. Mannur Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Under Secretary, Bangaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
20-07-2020 M/s. Luminous Power Technologies (P) Ltd. & Another Versus Kanwar Sain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-06-2020 Bilsy Joseph, now residing at 3743, Falkner Drive, United States of America, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder (Mother), Rosamma Joseph, Kottayam Versus Registrar of Births & Deaths, Changanassery Muncipality, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., AP. & Others Versus Kimudu Monu & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Ge Power India Ltd. Versus NHPC Limited High Court of Delhi
18-06-2020 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Through Its Secretary/Cmd, The Mall Patiala Punjab & Others Versus Vikramjit Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 M/s. Group 5 Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-06-2020 Shankar Saran Versus Chairman & Managing Director Eastern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-06-2020 EHVEES, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Dealer, Manjeri, Represented by M. Muhammed Gadhafi, Power of Attorney Holder, Shoukathali Versus The District Collector, Malappuram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-06-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Versus State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited & Another Versus M/s. Srigdhaa Beverages Supreme Court of India
27-05-2020 Narayana Nayak, Represented by Special Power of Attorney Holder, S.M. Dhananjaya Versus Range Forest Officer, Hudikeri Branch, Kodagu & Another High Court of Karnataka
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
21-05-2020 The Institute of the Ursuline Franciscan Congregation, Represented by the Power of Attorney Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakf, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
15-05-2020 M/s S.M.C Power Generation Ltd, Orissa Versus Dilip Bhai Patel High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-05-2020 M/s. Suryadev Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Govind Gagoria & Another Versus M/s. Shri Govindaraja Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director, Aruppukottai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-05-2020 M/s. Bhilwara Energy Ltd. & Another Versus The Chief Secretary (Power) Government of Arunachal Pradesh Supreme Court of India
07-05-2020 State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai Versus M/s. PRP Exports, M/s. PRP Granites through its Power Agent/Partner, P. Sureshkumar Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-05-2020 Grievances Redressal Officer, M/s. Economic Times Internet Ltd., Haryana & Others Versus M/s. V.V. Minerals Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Manager & Power Agent, S. Krishnamurthy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-04-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus State Tradings Corporation Of India Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 M/s. PPS Enviro Power Private Limited (PPSE) Versus M/s. Pantime Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-04-2020 Sai Wardha Power Generation Limited Versus The Tata Power Company Limited Distribution & Others Supreme Court of India
23-03-2020 Jithin, Malappuram, Represented by his Power of Attorney holder, Geetha Versus Reshma & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 M/s. Asva Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Directorate of Logistics & Another Supreme Court of India
10-03-2020 Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited V/S Gemini Power Systems High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru
06-03-2020 Pankaj Kumar Singh Versus National Thermal Power Corp Ltd. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
05-03-2020 Muthu Versus M/s. Indusind Bank Limited, Represented by its Power of Attorney R.S. Bharath, Deputy Manager – Legal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 S. Shybudheen, Rep. by his power of attorney agent, Ziauddin Ahmed Versus Reyhana Shmeem Begam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Muthu Versus M/s. Indusind Bank Limited, Represented by its Power of Attorney R.S. Bharath & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 M/s. Srex Power India Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
03-03-2020 Ansy Rajan, (Now Residing in Qatar & Represented by Power of Attorney Holder Tomas George Frederic, Kadavanthra, Kochi) & Another Versus District Collector, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
28-02-2020 Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd Having its Registered office at NDPL House, Hudson Lines, New Delhi V/S Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary, New Delhi Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
28-02-2020 M/s. S.S. Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietrix S. Sumathi, Through her power agent R. Sivaramakrishnan Versus The District Collector, Erode High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
27-02-2020 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Represented by its Senior Manager(RS) & Power Agent, S. Gunasekaran Versus V. Sudhakar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Limited V/S Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Another Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
25-02-2020 V. Seethapathi Naidu (Died), Rep. by his Power of Attorney Agent Chandrasekaran & Others Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Biomass Power Producers Association, Tamil Nadu Sigapi Achi Building, Chennai V/S Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission 19-A, Chennai And Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
17-02-2020 M/s. Hitachi Power Europe GmbH, Represented by the Authorised Signatory of its Project Office, Chennai, Pravesh P. Jain Versus Income tax Settlement Commission Additional Bench, Chennai Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Musunuri Chinna Chakardhar, Represented by his Power of Attorney Agent, Chennai Versus The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 C.P. Shinod Versus M/s. Shriram Transport Co. Ltd Rep. by Its Power of Attorney Holder, Rajan & Another High Court of Kerala
13-02-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, O/o. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Salem Versus M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., M/s. JSW Power Ltd., Pottaneri, Mecheri High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 M/s. Malwa Solar Power Generation Private Limited Director, New Delhi Versus Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission The Secretary, Madhya Pradesh & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
10-02-2020 Brahmacharimayum Achou Sharma & Others Versus The State of Manipur through the Chief Secretary-cum-Secretary (Power), Govt. of Manipur & Others High Court of Manipur
10-02-2020 Vaayu (India) Power Corporation (P) Limited, Rep. by V. Chandrasekar V/S Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Madurai Power Corporation Limited, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Zothanpuia (Minor) Versus The Secretary, Power & Electricity Department, Government Of Mizoram, Aizawl High Court of Gauhati
05-02-2020 PPN Power Generating Company Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Power Max (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jindal Urban Waste Management (Guntur) Ltd & Another High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 Ramakrishna Mission-Rep by its duly authorized Power Agent Swami Amirthananda Versus V. Parvathy High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Rep., by its Chairman, Karur Versus The Corporation Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Power of Attorney Agent, N.V. Aranganathan, Salem High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 U.P Power Corp Ltd Thru Managing Director Lko & Others Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court Faizabad & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
03-02-2020 Lakshmi Rauschenbach, Rep. by Power of Attorney Anand Sasidharan Versus Valuesource Technologies (P) Ltd, Rep. by its Director Christian Lippens & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 In Phase Power Technologies Private Limited V/S ABB India Limited Competition Commission of India
30-01-2020 M/s. Lanco Tanjore Power Company Ltd., T.Nagar, Chennai & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 GE Power India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Alstom Projects Ltd.) Versus A. Aziz Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee Vidyut Soudha, Represented by its Chief Engineer & Others V/S M/s. NSL Sugars Ltd., Represented by its AGM - Power Trading & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
30-01-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Ram Gopal Supreme Court of India
29-01-2020 BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Another Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
29-01-2020 KARE Power Resources Private Limited, Bengaluru & Another Versus Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
29-01-2020 Rajumary, through her power of attorney, A. Philip Berchmans Raj Versus Vellathai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-01-2020 P.R. Dhanalakshmiammal (Died) Rep. through her General Power of Attorney P.K. Jothikrishnan & Another Versus Lazar Nadar Rep. through his power agent S.Shanmugavel & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-01-2020 Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jindal India Thermal Power Limited High Court of Delhi
22-01-2020 Kalpataru Power Transmission Limited Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited High Court of Delhi
21-01-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-01-2020 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-01-2020 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Nandanam, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. UB Engineering Limited, Rep. by its Power of Attorney G.D. Deshpande & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Haryana Power Purchase Centre Versus Magnum Power Generation Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 Tractebel Engineering Private Limited Versus Patnazi Power Limited National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
20-01-2020 Shanavas Zainul Arab, Rep. by her power of attorney R. Rajmohan Versus The District Collector-cum-Additional Secretary (Revenue), Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 His Holiness Sri-La-Sri Kasivasi, Muthukumaraswamy Thambiran Swamigal, Rep. By Power Holder Srimath Sundaramurthi Thambiran Swamigal, Joint Head of Kasimadam, Thanjavur Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2020 A.V. Bindhu Versus Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd. Iritty Brach, Represented by Its Power of Attorney Holder, P.M. Rajani & Another High Court of Kerala
13-01-2020 Sukhalal & Others Versus Jacob, Represented by Power of Attorney holder Abraham, Cherthala & Another High Court of Kerala
09-01-2020 Greenesol Power Systems Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E., Bangalore-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Bangalore
08-01-2020 Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur V/S Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-01-2020 M/s. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited Versus Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
07-01-2020 M/s. Bhilangana Hydro Power Limited, Represented by Authorised Representative B-37, Uttar Pradesh Versus Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
07-01-2020 Vivek Versus Vishwam Power & Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
06-01-2020 Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-01-2020 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
03-01-2020 TVL. National Power Press, Rep. by its Partner, R. Raguraman, Thanjavur Versus The Special Committee U/s 16 D of the TNGST Act, 1959, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-12-2019 Deepak Transport Agency, Hydeerabad Versus The Madras Pharmaceuticals, Rep. By Subrogee/Power Agent, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-12-2019 M. Shankar & Others V/S M/s. Switching Power Conversion Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director R. Srinivas High Court of Karnataka
18-12-2019 Sai Regency Power corporation Private Limited (In Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016), Hyderabad Rep. By Resolution Professional G. Ramachandran Versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Puducherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 Krishna Mahadevan @ Mahadevan, Hiruvananthapuram, Represented by Power of Attorney Holder, M. Krishna Iyer Versus K.R. Moniamma & Others High Court of Kerala
12-12-2019 Nobby M. George, Changanassery Tlauk, Rep. by Power of Attorney holder his mother Alice George, Changanassery Versus Jossy Joseph, Kuttanad Taluk, Now Staying With Her Sister Raji Joseph, Erskine Court, Nanuet 10954, New York, USA High Court of Kerala
10-12-2019 ISNI Electric Power Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
10-12-2019 Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Versus The Arbitration Tribunal & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-12-2019 Prabhu rep. By his Power Agent, A.K. Chandrasekar Versus Dr. Mohanabalusamy High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-12-2019 Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Versus Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & Another Supreme Court of India
04-12-2019 Malarkodi Versus K. Subramanian, Through his Power Agent Raju, Sivagangai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-12-2019 P.G. Amirthalingam, Represented by his Power Agent V. Krishnasamy Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 R.S. Sahana Versus Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) & Others High Court of Karnataka
29-11-2019 Alli Sekar alias Sekar Versus Ramu, Represented by his Power Agent Rajeswari Ammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-11-2019 Lakshmi Kumar @ Vasudevan & Others Versus Ahobila Mutt by his Holines, Narayana Yathindra Mahisikan, Represented by his Power of Attorney agent S. Rajagopalan, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-11-2019 Ch. Mukunda Rao Versus Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., of Telangana State, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Warangal & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-11-2019 Narayanan Versus M/s. Ahuja Continental Limited, Represented by its Area Manager & Power Agent, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras