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



New Delhi Municipal Council v/s Vijay Kumar Sharma


Company & Directors' Information:- VIJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25199DL1998PTC096860

Company & Directors' Information:- S C SHARMA AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1948PTC001507

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035620

Company & Directors' Information:- K P SHARMA (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1988PTC045569

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2017PTC220657

Company & Directors' Information:- P C SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1981PTC012750

Company & Directors' Information:- VIJAY J AND K PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100GJ1974PTC002504

Company & Directors' Information:- J. R. SHARMA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24211DL1966PTC004602

Company & Directors' Information:- M K SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74994DL1982PTC014090

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA AND SHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2015PTC276949

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA & CO. PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28991WB1949PTC018064

Company & Directors' Information:- D VIJAY AND COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1933PTC002056

    W.P.(C). No. 2549 of 2017 & C.M. No. 10983 of 2017 (for stay)

    Decided On, 15 January 2020

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

    For the Petitioner: Sriparna Chatterjee, Advocate. For the Respondent: Jai Sahai Endlaw, Shivansh Soni, Deepika Mishra, Advocates.



Judgment Text


(Oral)

1. The present writ petition filed by the Management/New Delhi Municipal Corporation assails the award dated 02.03.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No.1199/16. Under the impugned award, the Labour Court has, while rejecting the respondent’s claim to be regularised as a Pump Driver, directed the petitioner to regularise him on the post of Khalasi (Group-D) w.e.f. 02.06.1986 and grant him all consequential benefits arising therefrom.

2. The respondent, having joined the petitioner/corporation as a Pump Driver in December, 1981, was brought on the regular muster roll of this post w.e.f. 10.02.1983. Aggrieved by his non-regularisation, despite rendering over 5 years of service at the corporation, the respondent made several representations to the petitioner seeking his regularisation. The petitioner considered his grievance and, notwithstanding the recommendation of its officers to regularise the respondent as a Pump Driver by granting him relaxation, informed the respondent vide its letter Ex.MW1/3 that he was not eligible for regularisation. The petitioner, instead, advised the respondent to accept its offer, made vide office order dated 10.11.1986, to regularise him at the post of Khalasi. However, the respondent refused this offer and continued to claim regularisation as a Pump Driver, for which purpose he even met the petitioner’s Chairman in April, 2003. Subsequently, vide letter dated 02.06.2003, the petitioner once again asked the respondent to accept regularisation on the post of Khalasi. Aggrieved by the petitioner’s refusal to regularise him on the post of Pump Driver, the respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court.

3. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner opposed the respondent’s claim and reiterated that the respondent was eligible only for being regularised as a Khalasi as he did not fulfil the requisite qualifications for the post of Pump Driver. The petitioner claimed that it had made repeated efforts to convince the respondent on this aspect, which had been thwarted and, therefore, his claim was liable to be rejected. In support thereof, the petitioner filed its evidence by way of affidavit as also a copy of the letter which was purportedly dated 02.06.1986 wherein the respondent was advised to accept the offer of regularisation as a Khalasi.

4. The Labour Court rejected the respondent’s claim to be regularised as a Pump Driver, vide its impugned award. However, by relying on the petitioner’s offer, the Labour Court allowed the claim of the respondent by directing his regularisation to the post of Khalasi w.e.f. 10.11.1986, in accordance with the terms of Ex.MW1/3 which had been filed by the petitioner itself. The Labour Court further directed the petitioner to grant him all consequential benefits arising out of the said regularisation. At this stage, it may be appropriate to reproduce in extenso the observations of the Labour Court in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the impugned award, which reads as under:-

“12. The management had filed written statement Ex.WW3/1 dated 27.06.2003 before the ALC Office. Following paragraph of that written statement are relevant:-

(i) It is true and not denied that he was engaged on TMR as Pump Driver in the year 1981 and on 10.02.1983, he was taken on R.M.R.

(ii) A list was prepared for group 'C workers working on RMR in the year 2001, and his name was at S. No. 18, of the said list on demand of Director (P) on 12.12.2000.

(iii) The said list of workers on RMR group 'C workers on RMR was sent to the authorities for there regularization on 19.07.2001.

(iv) The authorities have not considered his case of P regularization as he was not eligible and fulfilled the required educational qualification of ITI Certificate. But considered for regularization on Group 'D' post i.e. against the post of Khalasi in Elect. Deptt. as he fulfils the educational qualification.

(v) On 10.11.1999 while considering his case for regularization, he was asked to furnish an acceptance for the post of Khalasi vide No. SO(E)3139/SA-III dated 10.11.99 which is still awaited.

In April, 2003 he met with Chairman regarding his regularization and again in June, 2003 on the advice of Chairman he was asked for his acceptance for the post of Khalasi within 30 days vide No. SO(E) 1435/SA-llI dated 02.06.03, failing which offer would be withdrawn. Instead of giving acceptance he moved before ALC for the said purpose.

(vi) As per the policy the services of Group 'C RMR worker can be regularized in Group 'C post only subject to fulfilling RRS and availability of vacancy.

Further, his services cannot be regularized on Group 'C post as he does not possess the requirement of RR for post of Pump Driver. However, he was given an opportunity for regularization in Group 'D' post, seeking the working on RMR for 10 years, which he has not accepted till date".

13. It becomes clear from Ex. MWl/3 and Ex. MW3/1 that the management had given claimant an offer of regularization as Khalasi on 10.11.1986 and such offer was in existence as on 27.06.2003. That offer would not materialize because the claimant had not given his consent for regularization as Khalasi. Under ill advise, he was insisting for Pump Operator. The offer remained open for him for 17 long years. In Nand Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra), the State Government had not held out any promise to the workers while engaging their services either to continue them where they were or to make them permanent. In the case in hand, there is something more than promise from the site of management. In fact, the post of Khalasi was offered to the claimant and he could not be regularized due to his own mistake. So, the cited law is not applicable to the case in hand. The management cannot be allowed to retreat and foreclose the offer which it had given to the claimant on 10.11.1986 vide letter Ex.MWl/3.

14. In view of above discussion, the management is directed to regularize the claimant on the post of Khalasi (Group D) w.e.f. 02.06.1986. It is further directed to provide him all consequential benefits within a month from the date of publication of his award failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9 per cent per annum from today till realization. Reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed accordingly.”

5. Impugning this award, the present writ petition has been filed by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation.

6. In support of the petition, Ms Sriparna Chatterjee learned counsel for the petitioner has raised primarily three grounds. The first and foremost plea being that the petitioner could not be directed to implement its offer to regularise the respondent as a Khalasi at this belated stage, merely because it had, at one point of time, made such an offer. She submits that in any event, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the petitioner’s offer had been made over 30 years ago which offer was declined by the respondent at the time; the Labour Court has erroneously treated the petitioner’s offer as an open-ended offer, by discounting the fact that this offer was not valid any longer and could certainly not be relied upon to grant the respondent any reliefs.

7. The second contention of Ms.Chatterjee is that the reliance by the Labour Court on the letter dated 02.06.1986 at Ex.MWl/3 is wholly misplaced as the genuineness thereof was questionable. To that end she submits that the contents of the aforesaid letter make reference to an offer dated 10.11.1986, which was several months after the date of the letter itself, which shows that the letter dated 02.06.1986 was either fabricated or procured. She, therefore, contends that the impugned award which primarily relies on this letter is liable to be set aside.

8. She finally submits that in any event, once the respondent’s own case is that he was appointed on the regular muster roll on 10.02.1983, he could not be regularised before completing six years of service as a regular muster roll employee i.e. 10.02.1989. She, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.

9. On the other hand, Mr.Jai Sahai Endlaw learned counsel for the respondent submits that even though the respondent was fully eligible to be regularised as a Pump Driver in the opinion of the petitioner’s own officers, he has duly been granted regularisation at the post of ‘Khalasi’ under the impugned award. Without prejudice to his aforesaid plea, he submits that once the petitioner itself had sought to rely on the letter Ex.MW1/3, the Labour Court, while rejecting the respondent’s claim for regularisation as a ‘Pump Driver’, was fully justified in directing the petitioner to regularise him on the lower post of ‘Khalasi’ on the basis of the said letter. He submits that before the Labour Court, the petitioner had filed only a duly attested typed copy of the aforesaid letter and it is only before this Court that a photocopy of the said letter Ex.MW1/3 has now been placed on record. A perusal of the said photocopy would show that the figure ‘1986’ has been handwritten in the said letter which shows that there is every possibility that this letter was written in the year 1987, but while being filed before the Labour Court, was inadvertently dated to the year ‘1986’ by some officer in the petitioner/organisation. He submits that, in any event, the petitioner had never taken this plea either before the Labour Court or in its pleadings before this Court and, therefore, it cannot now be allowed to contest the correctness of the contends of the said letter.

10. Mr.Endlaw further submits that the petitioner’s plea that the respondent could be regularised only after rendering six years’ service as a regular muster roll workman is also misplaced. He submits that the said condition of six years of service was incorporated for the first time in the resolution dated 27.01.1987 and the past practice of the petitioner was to regularise a regular muster roll workman as and when the regular vacancy arose. He submits that even otherwise, once the petitioner chose not to file its earlier resolution, the Labour Court was fully justified in accepting the respondent’s plea that he was entitled to be regularised at least from 10.11.1986 as a Khalasi.

11. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record.

12. As noted hereinabove, the primary basis on which the impugned award has been passed is the offer made by the petitioner to the respondent vide its office order dated 10.11.1986, the contents whereof were referred to by the petitioner itself in its letter Ex.MW1/3. Though the petitioner has vehemently contended that the said letter should not be relied upon, I am unable to accept the said plea as upon perusal of the note sheets filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition, I find that the said letter is in continuation of the recommendations made by the officers of the petitioner that the respondent deserved to be regularised at the post of ‘Pump Driver’ by grant of relaxation in educational qualifications, as had been granted to similarly placed workmen at this post. Having perused a photocopy of the said letter, which has been placed on record before this Court, I am inclined to accept the contention of Mr.Endlaw that the figure ‘1986’ having been handwritten could be an inadvertent mistake on the part of some officer. Therefore, it may not be safe to discard the said letter merely on the ground that the letter dated 02.06.1986 was referring to an office order dated 10.11.1986, especially when the said letter was tendered in evidence by the petitioner itself. Even otherwise, nothing much turns on the contents of the said letter, as it is the petitioner’s own case that the respondent was repeatedly advised to accept its offer to regularise him on the post of Khalasi.

13. I also do not find any merit in the petitioner’s plea that once the respondent chose not to accept regularisation as a Khalasi in 1986 or even in 2003, the Labour Court could not have directed the petitioner to regularise him thereon at this stage. In my view, once it is evident that the respondent joined service in December, 1981 to the higher post of ‘Pump Diver’ and has continued to serve at the said post to the utmost satisfaction of his superior officers, and was admittedly eligible to be regularised at least on the lower post of ‘Khalasi’ in the year 1986 itself, it would be a travesty of justice to deprive him of the said relief only because he was claiming regularisation on a higher post. In fact, in the light of the admitted position that the respondent was discharging duties as a Pump Driver right from December, 1981, it cannot be said that his repeated pleas for regularisation o

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

n the said post were wholly unjustified or that on account of his making the said claim he should be denied regularisation on the lower post of ‘Khalasi’ for which he was eligible w.e.f. 10.11.1986. I, therefore, find no infirmity with the directions given in the impugned Award for regularisation of the respondent on the post of Khalasi w.e.f. 10.11.1986. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the well reasoned award passed by the Labour Court in exercise of my writ jurisdiction. The writ petition being meritless is dismissed. 15. It is, however, made clear that the findings in the impugned award that the respondent was not eligible for regularisation as Pump Driver will not debar him from claiming promotion to the said post on the basis of his uninterrupted service on the post of Khalasi w.e.f. 10.11.1986. In case a claim for promotion to the post of ‘Pump Driver’ is raised by the respondent, the Labour Court will consider the same on its own merits. If the respondent is found eligible for such promotion, the Court will, in the light of the fact that these proceedings have remained pending either before the Labour Court or this Court for the last 16 years, also consider granting him benefit from a retrospective date. 16. The petitioner is directed to release consequential benefits in terms of the impugned award to the respondent within a period of three months.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

23-09-2020 Charu Sharma & Others Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Maharshtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-09-2020 Arun Sharma Versus Roxann Sharma In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
15-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through The Regional Manager, New Delhi Versus Dinesh Vijay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-09-2020 Vijay Vilasrao Sutare Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through, Secretary, home department, State of Maharashtra, Mantralay Mumbai & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-09-2020 Arun Kumar Sharma Versus Adesh Goel & Others High Court of Delhi
08-09-2020 Sidharth Vijay Shah Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-09-2020 Suneeta Sharma Versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Punjab & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-09-2020 Vijay Singh Yadav Versus Ajay Shanker Rai High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-09-2020 Rashid Khan Pathan & In The Matter Of: In Re: Vijay Kurle & Others Supreme Court of India
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Kumar Versus C.B.I. High Court of Delhi
31-08-2020 Dr. Vijay Mallya Versus State Bank of India & Others Supreme Court of India
26-08-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nand Kishore Sharma & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
25-08-2020 Abhishek Sharma @ Chanchal Pandit Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-08-2020 Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Gauhati
24-08-2020 ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Through Manager, Rajasthan Versus Ram Prakash Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 H.N. Sharma & Anr versus Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 Vijay Cotton & Fibre Co., Maharashtra Versus New India Insurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Nipun Sharma Versus Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
14-08-2020 Union of India & Another Versus M/s. K.C. Sharma & Co. & Others Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 V.P. Sharma & Others Versus Dr. G.S. Kochar Surgeon Urologist) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma V/S Rakesh Sharma and Others. Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 Vijay Pal Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Supreme Court of India
07-08-2020 Vijay Ramswarup Sharma Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
06-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Kailash Chand Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-07-2020 R. Vijay Versus Shabeena Begum & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-07-2020 Manish Sharma & Another Versus Urmila Arora High Court of Delhi
22-07-2020 Radheshyam Darsheema Versus Kunwar Vijay Shah & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-07-2020 Mohd. Quasim Versus P. Vijay Prakash High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-06-2020 Tara Prasad Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
23-06-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Through The General Manager & Another Versus Narendra Kumar Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-06-2020 Ashok Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
17-06-2020 Ministry of Railways Through Divisional Commercial Manager Versus V. Vijay Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Aman Sharma Versus The Chief Election Commissioner & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
16-06-2020 Dr. Vijay Mallya Versus State Bank of India & Others Supreme Court of India
15-06-2020 Rajan Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
02-06-2020 Prateek Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
30-05-2020 Kshitiz Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
29-05-2020 Vijay Ganesh @ Vijay @ Kurangu Vijay Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-05-2020 Ajay @ Vijay @ Babu Jaiswal, Chhattisgarh Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-05-2020 Mukesh Sharma Versus C.V. Ramana High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-05-2020 Randhir Rambrij Sharma Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Rahul @ Vijay Versus The State of Rajasthan Supreme Court of India
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 Virendra Kumar Versus Vijay Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-05-2020 Vijay Kumar Agrahari Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
06-05-2020 Kamla Sharma Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation High Court of Delhi
04-05-2020 Air India Ltd. Through, Its General Manager (O) Versus Vijay Dhawan Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
04-05-2020 Re: Vijay Kurle & Others Supreme Court of India
29-04-2020 Anurag Sarmah @ Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
27-04-2020 Omprakash & Others Versus Vijay Dwarkada Varma In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-04-2020 RE : Vijay Kurle & Others Supreme Court of India
22-04-2020 Anand Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-04-2020 Dr. Mahesh Sharma & Another Versus Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Rajasthan
15-04-2020 Sanjeev Sharma Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
13-04-2020 Mamta Sharma & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Mohmmad Yunus Versus Madho Prasad Sharma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
30-03-2020 Prashant Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
23-03-2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others Versus Megha Sharma & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-03-2020 Anju Sharma Versus Sunita Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
19-03-2020 State of Uttar Pradesh & Others V/S Vijay Shankar Dubey Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Shambhu Prasad Sharma Advocate Versus Renu Jogi High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 Saurav Sharma Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
17-03-2020 Aashu Pandit @ Aashu Bajpai @ Aash Narayan Sharma Versus Union of India High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
13-03-2020 Unnati Bhardwaj & Another Versus K.P. Sharma High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Vijay Kumar Singh Versus Rana Cooperative Housing Society & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 Ajay Sharma & Others Versus Kulwant Singh High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Rampal Sharma & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
05-03-2020 M/s. N.K. Enterprise, West Bengal & Another V/S Narayan Prasad Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-03-2020 Sancha Bahadur Subba Versus Ramesh Sharma High Court of Sikkim
04-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Sharma Versus Nirmaldas Manikpuri High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-03-2020 Amitabh Versus Amit Rghunandan Saran Sharma & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-03-2020 Madhya Pradesh Housing & Infrastructure Development Board & Another Versus Vijay Bodana & Others Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Dilip Kumar Sharma Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
28-02-2020 Vijay Kishanrao Kurundkar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
25-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
24-02-2020 Vijay Anand & Another Versus Vedic Conclave Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-02-2020 Sarwan Kumar Sharma Versus Ranjana Sharma @ Ranjana Rani & Another High Court of Delhi
19-02-2020 Vijay Soni Versus Anju @ Uma High Court of Rajasthan
19-02-2020 Bhupendra Sharma & Others Versus Union of India, Represented By The Secretary Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Jagdish Prasad Vijay Versus Niti Aaayog, Erstwhile, Planning Commission Through The Dy. Chairman, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
18-02-2020 Vijay Mehta @ Bijal Mehta Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-02-2020 ICICI Bank Ltd., Rajashtan & Others Versus Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-02-2020 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-02-2020 Ram Prakash Sharma Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-02-2020 Vijay Prakash Mishra Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-02-2020 Vinay Sharma Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 Vijay Karia And Others V/S Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Srl And Others Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 Harinarayan Sharma Versus Vijay Kumar Soni National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Lucknow, U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-02-2020 Umesh Chand Sharma & Others Versus Parsvnath Developers Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-02-2020 Shashibala M. Sharma Versus ICICI Bank Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 Mukulika Sharma & Others Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Siddharath @ Vijay Bhosale & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay