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



Narain Ramchandra Bakhle (since deceased) by his LRs. & Others v/s Govind Datta Bakhle (since deceased) by his LRs. & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- NARAIN AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15400PB2011PTC035410

Company & Directors' Information:- R DATTA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC015097

    Writ Petition No. 956 of 2017

    Decided On, 09 July 2018

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Goa

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NUTAN D. SARDESSAI

    For the Petitioners: P. Arolkar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Sudin Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with T. Ghanekar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. The petitioners have taken exception to the order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Ponda invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Shri P. Arolkar, learned Advocate for the petitioners who submitted that the respondents had filed the suit for partition claiming right to the property bearing survey nos.9/1 and 10/1 and the petitioners as the defendants had filed their written statement in defence specifically denying the case set up by the respondents including their locus standi to file their suit for partition claiming exclusive right to the properties bearing survey nos.9/1 and 10/1 and that the statement in defence was duly accompanied by the list of documents on which they were relying. The respondents had moved an application seeking interrogatories under Order XI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code which were in the nature of fishing inquiries and when the burden was on the respondents to prove their case and not on the petitioners. The written synopsis were filed on behalf of the respondents and when the application seeking interrogatories should have been under Order XI Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. There was an error by the learned Trial Judge in allowing interrogatories as it did at the instance of the respondents and therefore the impugned order was liable to be quashed and set aside. He placed reliance in Tata Iron Steel Company Limited vs Rajarishi Exports (P) Limited [1978 Law Suit (Ori) 10], Canara Bank vs. Steron Castings Industries [1990 Law Suit (Del) 357] and Ali Kader Syud Hossain Ali vs. Gobind Dass [1890 Law Suit (Cal) 85].

3. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted at the outset that it was for the petitioners to show how the order under challenge was perverse, without jurisdiction and/or that it had caused injustice to the petitioners. He referred to the plaint, the list of documents relied alongwith it apart from the written statement filed in defence by the petitioners which was vague and there was no basis for such a defence. The impugned order did not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction and therefore the petition had to be dismissed. He placed reliance in M/s. Delhi Vanaspati Syndicate vs. K. C. Chawala [AIR 1983 Jammu & Kashmir 65], P. Balan vs. Central Bank of India, Calicut [AIR 2000 Kerala 24], Dinesh Jagannath Khandelwal vs Kundanlal Perumal Chhabriya & Ors.[2010 (1) Bom.C.R.728] and Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs [(2012) 5 SCC 370].

4. I would consider their contentions, the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the judgments relied upon and decide the petition accordingly.

5. The respondents had filed the suit for partition of the properties bearing survey nos.9/1 and 10/1 of Village Kavle on a plea that the property originally belonged to three brothers Ramchandra, Datta and Keshav, all sons of Anant Ram Bakhle and that the respondent no.1 was the grandson of Datta while the petitioners were the legal heirs of Ramchandra and the respondents alongwith the original defendant nos.2 to 4 were the sons of Datta. It was also their specific case that on the death of the wife of Datta, Inventory Proceedings were initiated and by an order dated 10.10.1932, one-third share of the entire suit property was allotted to the said Datta, father of the respondent no.1 and original defendant nos.2 to 5. It was also their case that the petitioners started disturbing the division and they were unable to enjoy their share properly and peacefully constraining them to file the suit for partition in three equal parts and allotment of one third share to the respondent no.1, the original defendant nos.2 to 4 and the petitioners.

6. The respondent no.1 had relied on the list of documents being the order in the Inventory Proceedings dated 10.10.1932, the survey records and survey plans, the matriz certificate and the order in the proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate. The petitioners herein as the original defendant no.1 had taken a plea that the property bearing survey nos.9/1 and 10/1 were owned and possessed by them through their ancestors, specifically denied that the respondents herein were jointly owning the suit property alongwith them or their entitlement to one third of the suit property. It needs reckoning that though the petitioners denied the case of the respondent no.1 that the suit property was originally owned by three brothers, Ramchandra, Datta and Keshav, all sons of Anant Bakhle, there was no dispute about their interse relationship. The petitioners seeking exclusive ownership and possession of the suit property had relied on several documents being the survey records but none tracing their title to the suit property bearing survey nos.9/1 and 10/1 of Village Kavle, Ponda Taluka. In that context, the respondent no.1 herein were justified in seeking the interrogatories, the purpose of which amongst others was to narrow down the scope of dispute between the parties and in the long run shorten the litigation between the parties.

7. Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code deals with discovery and inspection and Rule 1 provides for the discovery by interrogatories. It reads as follows :

'1. Discovery by interrogatories- In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer.

Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose.

Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness.'

8. Sub-rule (4) deals with the form of interrogatories. Rule 12 deals with the application for discovery of documents and reads thus :

'4. Form of interrogatories – Interrogatories shall be in Form No.2 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require.'

Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the application for discovery of documents and reads thus:

'Application for discovery of documents – Any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the Court for an order directing any other party to any suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question therein. On the hearing of such application the Court may either refuse or adjourn the same, if satisfied that such discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the suit, or make such order, either generally or limited to certain classes of documents, as may, in its discretion, be thought fit :

Provided that discovery shall not be ordered when and so far as the court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.'

In other words, the caption of the application is not relevant and what matters is the substance of the application. Therefore, merely because the application has been one styled as that under Order XI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code which deals with the form of interrogatories, the petitioners will not be entitled to reap any benefit therefrom, the intent being to seek the discovery as contemplated by Rule 1 Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code.

9. In Tata Iron and Steel Company (supra), being the sole defendant in the money suit filed by the respondent with pendente lite and future interest and the cost of the suit, the said amount was claimed on the basis of certain allegations made in the plaint based on contracts between the respondents and the petitioners. In the suit filed under Order XI Rule 1 of CPC praying for an order of the Court directing the respondent to answer in writing the interrogatories filed by them. The respondents filed its answer to the said interrogatories without waiting for an order of the Court to that effect and thereafter the petitioners moved the application under Order XI Rule 11 of the CPC alleging that the answer to the abovementioned interrogatories furnished by the respondents were incomplete, insufficient and/or ambiguous and that the respondent had incorporated irrelevant materials in the said answers. On the said allegations, the petitioners prayed for a direction to the respondent to answer the said interrogatories in a more clear, explicit and specific manner, omitting the irrelevant portions therein and on dismissal of the last mentioned petition, the petitioners filed the Revision before the High Court of Orissa.

10. In Tata Iron and Steel Company (supra), it was canvassed that the Civil Revision was not maintainable as by the impugned order the court did not adjudicate any right or obligation of the parties in controversy, and so it could not be said that 'a case had been decided' by that order within the meaning of Section 115, C.P.C, In support of his submission he cited the decision reported in Baldevdas Shivlal & anr. Vs Filmistan Distributors (India) Private Limited & Ors.[AIR 1970 SC 406]. It was canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent had omitted to answer the question No.12 as it had not furnished the details of the correspondence, nor had it produced the documents referred to in that question. On serving interrogatories on a party under Order XI, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code one cannot compel that party to make discovery on oath of any document. Provision for discovery on oath or production or inspection of documents is made under Rules 12 to 21 of Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code. The application in question was made by the defendant under Order XI, Rules 1, 2 and 4, C.P.C., as expressly mentioned in the application itself. Accordingly, the petitioner could not make any complaint if discovery of or about documents in any manner was not given or made by the plaintiff on the said application. In that view of the matter, there was no merit in the petition which was accordingly dismissed.

11. Canara Bank (supra), had filed an application under Order XI Rule 12 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the respondent to discover on oath all the documents relating to the matter in the suit which were or had been in power and possession of the respondent within the period prescribed on the ground, inter alia, that their claim was based only on documentary evidence and all the documents in the respondent's power and possession had not been filed by the plaintiff in the suit nor had they been supplied to the petitioners. The respondents denied and stated that they had filed alongwith the plaint all the requisite documents on which the plaint was relied and copies of those documents filed with the plaint had been supplied to the petitioners. Here too, the learned Single Judge did not find merit in the petition and dismissed the same.

12. Both these judgments do not at all support the contention of Shri Arolkar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the interrogatories sought by the respondent no.1 were without any basis.

13. Ali Kader (supra), held that a party seeking interrogatories cannot be allowed to put fishing questions in order to try whether he can discover any flaw in the defendant's case or suggest any answer to it. If this test be applied, it is clear, we think, that the interrogatories in question are inadmissible. The petitioners have however failed to show from the material on record that the interrogatories were in the nature of fishing inquiries considering the specific plea taken by the respondent no.1 in their plaint and the defence taken by the petitioners in their written statement without any supporting documents.

14. In M/s. Delhi Vanaspati Syndicate (supra), a learned Single Judge of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court held while interpreting the scope of Order XI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code that interrogatories can be served to obtain admission from the opponent that are material for a decision of the case. It observed that a party is not entitled to require its adversary to answer interrogatories, the effect whereof would be to enable it to know the facts, which exclusively constitute the evidence of his opponent's case. But, it is equally true that it can administer interrogatories to its opponent, to obtain admissions from him to everything that on the pleadings of the parties is material for the decision of the case, with the object of facilitating the proof of its own case, as also saving the costs which it may otherwise have to incur on adducing evidence to prove the necessary facts. It referred to the observation in the Apex Court Judgment in Ral Narayan v. Indira Gandhi [AIR 1972 SC 1302] where it was observed that: 'The interrogatories must have reasonably close connection with matters in question'.

15. In P. Balan (supra), a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court spelt out the object and purpose of serving interrogatories being to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case or for destroying the case of the adversary. The answering of the interrogatories might save expenses and shorten the litigation by enabling a party to obtain from the other side information as to material facts regarding the questions in dispute or issues raised or to obtain admission of facts which the plaintiff has to prove on any issue. Answering the interrogatories might often shorten the trial proceedings and save the time of the Court and parties besides saving expenses for summoning witnesses, documents and the like. As a general rule, therefore interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve either to help the party in proving his case or to destroying the case of the adversary. The power is not meant to be confined within narrow limits. It should be used liberally whenever it can shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. Nevertheless, the power is to be exercised with care and caution so that it is not abused by any party.

16. In P. Balan (supra), it was observed that interrogatories have to be confined to the facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. A plaint or a written statement may not sufficiently disclose the nature of parties to the case, and to make good the deficiency, either party can serve interrogatories in writing which, when answered, would enable the Court to decide the suit without probing into the questions elaborately in the light of oral and documentary evidence. The Courts have to approach the question in a broad perspective aimed at seeing whether the grant thereof will enable fair trial and would save the cost of litigation to the parties. Of course, the possible objections specifically mentioned in Rule 6 of Order XI, C.P.C. also have to be considered. The interrogatories have to bear a reasonable close connection with the matters in question. A party is entitled to administer interrogatories to his opponents to obtain admission from him with the object of facilitating proof of his case as also to save the costs which may otherwise be incurred in adducing evidence to prove the necessary facts.

17. In Maria Margarida Sequeira (supra), a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that discovery and production of documents and answers to interrogatories, together with an approach of considering what in the ordinary course of human affairs is more likely to have been the probability, will prevent many a false claims or defences from sailing beyond the stage for issues. If the pleadings do not give sufficient details, they will not raise an issue, and the court can reject the claim or pass a decree on admission. On vague pleadings, no issue arises. Only when he so establishes, does the question of framing an issue arise. Framing of issues is an extremely important stage in a civil trial. Judges are expected to carefully examine the pleadings and documents before framing of issues in a given case and that the Courts should have frequent recourse to power under Section 30 to ascertain the truth.

18. Dinesh Jagannath Khandelwal (supra), reiterated the settled position of law that a mere no

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

n-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision in an application is not a ground to reject an application. 19. The respondent no.1 by their application apparently made under Order XI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code put forth their case that they had maintained the suit for partition while the petitioners had filed their statement in defence taking a plea that the whole suit properties bearing survey nos.9/1 and 10/1 were owned, possessed and enjoyed by them through their ancestors. The respondent no.1 therefore considering the plea taken by the petitioners herein had sought interrogatories on the nature of title documents to substantiate the case of the petitioners claiming title to the suit property and to produce the documents of ownership in court showing the correct boundaries of the suit property, the petitioners having disputed the boundaries too. The learned Judge on hearing the parties and on considering the pleadings at large before her, in the light of Order XI of the CPC, directed the petitioners herein to furnish the interrogatories at serial no.41(1), 41(2), 4(2)(a)(b) and 4(3) while disallowing the interrogatory at 4(1)(3) and 4(2)(a)(b). The order passed by the Trial Court which is assailed in this petition has not at all been shown by the petitioners to be either perverse, without jurisdiction or that it has caused injustice to the petitioners. Rather, it must be said that by seeking such interrogatories which had been directed by the Court, it would facilitate in narrowing the scope of dispute and shorten the dispute. 20. In the circumstances therefore, the order is not open to challenge in exercise of the powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence i pass the following : ORDER The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

28-08-2020 Suresh Banechand Runwal & Others Versus Datta Kundlik Varghude & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Mojaffar Rahaman Mondal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-05-2020 M/s Big Bazaar Future Value Retail Ltd., Through its Authorised representative Versus Sarita Narain Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-02-2020 Commissioner, Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow Versus M/s. Narain Vegetable Products Sitapur High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
22-01-2020 Gautam Singh Versus Shiv Narain Sah High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-01-2020 Basant Narain Dubey Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
23-12-2019 Indu Narain Versus State Bank of India & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi
19-12-2019 Bijay Kumar Sinha Versus Satyendra Narain Karn & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-12-2019 Trijugi Narain (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Others V/S Sankoo (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Others Supreme Court of India
18-11-2019 Hiranmay Datta & Another Versus Manjushree Mitra & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-11-2019 Soma Barman Nee Datta Versus Sunil Chandra Podder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-11-2019 Datta & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Co-operative & Textile, Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-10-2019 Garima Datta Bindra Versus Pawan Bindra High Court of Punjab and Haryana
30-09-2019 Jai Narain Tiwari Versus U.O.I. Thru. G.M. North Eastern Railway Gorakhpur & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
20-09-2019 Narain Singh Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
16-09-2019 Sumit Narain Tiwari Versus Additional District Judge & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-09-2019 Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Limited Versus Samir Narain Bhojwani High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-08-2019 Tanmay Datta Versus United Bank of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-07-2019 Aegon Life Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Narain Singh Chauhan Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
17-07-2019 Utpal Datta Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
17-07-2019 Nandita Narain Versus St. Stephen's College Through: Its Principal & Others High Court of Delhi
17-07-2019 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti & Another Versus M/s. Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mill Ltd. & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
03-07-2019 Station Master, Rajnagar Railway Station, Madhubani, Bihar & Others Versus Kamal Narain Roy National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-07-2019 Datta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadeet (Chinchwad) & Others Versus Tanwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Through his Director Amar Ramesh Tanwani & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2019 Debopriyo Datta rep by their Constituted Attorney, Supriti Dutta & Another Versus Roma Bose & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-05-2019 Uttam Kumar Datta Versus State of Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura
13-05-2019 Pratap Narain Negi & Others Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
02-05-2019 Catherine Datta Versus Seema Parab & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-04-2019 Datta Ganpat Kamble Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-04-2019 Satya Narain Kushwaha Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
10-04-2019 Dilsha Datta Mashelkar Versus State of Goa, Through the Director, Department of Urban Development (Municipal Administration) & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
01-04-2019 Raj Narain Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
18-03-2019 Sumana Datta Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-03-2019 Pratap Narain Verma Versus Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Another High Court of Delhi
12-03-2019 Ram Narain Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
08-03-2019 Raman Kumar & Others Versus Narain Dev & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
21-02-2019 Dattatraya @ Datta Ambo Rokade Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-02-2019 Bhato Paswan @ Narain Paswan Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-02-2019 Mahua Datta Versus M.B. Constructions & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
28-01-2019 Tarak Nath Datta & Others Versus Krishna Chandra Mondal & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-01-2019 Eclectic Developers Pvt. Ltd & Another Versus Smita Datta Makhija & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-01-2019 Sameer Datta Kadam Versus Supriya Sameer Kadam High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-01-2019 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Tej Narain & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
29-11-2018 State of H.P. & Another Versus Narain Singh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
15-11-2018 Surendra Narain Raizada Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
29-10-2018 Jai Narain & Another Versus Rajender Singh & Others High Court of Delhi
26-09-2018 Jarnail Singh & Others Versus Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others Supreme Court of India
24-09-2018 M/s. Pearson India Education Services Private Limited (Formerly known as Tutorvista Global Pvt. Ltd.), Representative G. Siva Subramanian Versus Datta Sai High School, Represented By Its Secretary, Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
11-09-2018 Utpal Datta Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-09-2018 Utpal Datta Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-09-2018 Dipu Datta @ Nepal Chandra Datta Versus Rakhal Chandra Datta High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-09-2018 Prakash Narain V/S Sharda Prasad and Others. High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur
21-08-2018 Samir Narain Bhojwani Versus M/s. Aurora Properties & Investments & Another Supreme Court of India
16-08-2018 Sat Narain Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
14-08-2018 Sandesh Datta @ Dattaram Salgaonkar Versus Vithal Vasu Mayekar, since deceased through his LR's & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
03-08-2018 Vijay Narain & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-07-2018 Dev Narain Verma (State) Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-07-2018 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Versus M/s. Narain Institute Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lucknow
05-07-2018 Tarak Nath Datta & Another Versus Joy Mondal & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-06-2018 Dr. Bansh Narain Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
18-06-2018 Datta & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-06-2018 Biswajit Datta Versus Raka Biswas West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-05-2018 Suchibrata Datta Choudhury Versus SY Associates Private Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
02-05-2018 Narain Gurjar (Deleted) & Others Versus Lala Ram & Others High Court of Rajasthan
25-04-2018 Gyanender Narain Tripathi Versus Citi Bank National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-04-2018 Lakshmi Narain Dubey Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
02-04-2018 Amolak Singh Versus Vinay Narain & Others High Court of Delhi
29-03-2018 Prayag Narain Dubey (P.N.Dubey) Versus U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Regional & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
29-03-2018 Prayag Narain Dubey (P.N.Dubey) Versus U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Regional & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-03-2018 Rakesh Birani (D) Through Lrs. Versus Prem Narain Sehgal & Another Supreme Court of India
23-02-2018 Rajendra Rajoriya Versus Jagat Narain Thapak & Another Supreme Court of India
19-02-2018 Income Tax Officer Versus Dharam Narain Supreme Court of India
19-02-2018 Central Board of Direct Taxes Versus Satya Narain Shukla High Court of Delhi
15-02-2018 Narain Packaging V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
05-02-2018 Jai Prakash Narain & Another Versus State of Karnataka by Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station, Kengeri Sub Division, Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor & Another High Court of Karnataka
24-01-2018 Shashi Bahadur & Another Versus Malka Bahadur (Since Deceased) Through Her L.R. Abha Narain (Since Deceased) Through Her Lrs High Court of Delhi
20-01-2018 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Bhulu Datta & Another Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
19-01-2018 Mridul Gupta & Others Versus Legal representative of Late Hemendra Narayan Datta & Others High Court of Tripura
16-01-2018 Datta Sonaji Doiphode Versus Deepak Walmik Meshram High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-01-2018 Ram Narain Versus Mahavir Singh & Others High Court of Delhi
03-01-2018 M/s. Atul Pipe Corporation Versus Jai Narain & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-01-2018 Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Limited Versus Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar High Court of Uttarakhand
08-12-2017 Aftaruddin (Dead) Rep. Thr. Lrs. Versus Ramkrishna Datta alias Babul Datta & Others Supreme Court of India
16-11-2017 Utpal Datta & Others Versus Thomas Cook (India ) Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-11-2017 Sheo Narain Nagar & Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
09-11-2017 Jai Narain & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others Supreme Court of India
24-10-2017 Suraj Narain Kapoor & Others Versus Pradeep Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
11-10-2017 Krishna Deva Narain Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Patna
11-09-2017 Bank of Baroda, Through its Branch Manager, Madurai Versus M/s. Mars Overseas Textiles, Through it's Proprietor Rajeev Narain, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-08-2017 Gajendra Singh Sahani Versus Jai Prakash Narain High Court of Karnataka
24-07-2017 Ajai Narain Agarwal Versus Additional District Magistrate (City) Allahabad & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-06-2017 Dr. Kaliprasad Datta Versus DUM DUM Municipal Specialised Hospital, Represented by Managing Director & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-06-2017 B.S. Raj Narain & Another Versus Axis Bank Ltd., Credit Management Centre, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2017 Jagdish Narain Pareek Versus Kamlesh Jain & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
29-05-2017 Maharaj Krishan Datta & Others Versus ICICI Bank Ltd., Chandigarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-05-2017 Jagat Narain Saraf & Another Versus Anjani Kumar Sharma Through Lr's & Another High Court of Delhi
16-05-2017 Hari Narain Khandelwal V/S CCE & ST, Jaipur - I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
26-04-2017 Manbhar Devi Versus Satya Narain Sharma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-04-2017 Datta Atchut Dabolkar & Others Versus Atmaram Shambu Dabolkar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa