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



New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi v/s Aasha Devi & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L66000MH1919GOI000526

Company & Directors' Information:- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L99999MH1919GOI000526

Company & Directors' Information:- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1919GOI000526

Company & Directors' Information:- DEVI CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U16000AP2011PTC076133

Company & Directors' Information:- B L AND CO NEW DELHI PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1968PTC004910

    Revision Petition No. 565 of 2016

    Decided On, 15 June 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. PREM NARAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Abhishek Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Nemo, R2, Kunal Chatterjee, Advocate.



Judgment Text


This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP-1, New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 9.11.2012 passed in First Appeal No. 287 of 2010 by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (For short, State Commission’) wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed and the order of the District Forum has been upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that husband of respondent no.1/complainant, Bhola Pd. Paswan (since deceased) had taken an insurance policy styled, “Janta Personal Accident Policy” for sum insured of Rs.5,00,000. On 3.02.2005 Complainant’s husband died in an accident. The insurance claim was filed by the complainant /respondent no.1 which was not settled by the OPs. Hence, the case was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 01.06.2010 allowed the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost.

3. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred First Appeal No. 287 of 2010 before the State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 9.11.2012.

4. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 was present and was also heard. Notice was not served to the respondent No.1/complainant and the same was dispensed with in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar matter where the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 25.11.2016 in SLP no.7732 of 2016 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi and another, has already observed that it is not necessary to serve the complainant and the insurance company to deposit the amount with the District Forum.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 appeared without any notice having been issued. However, he was also heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent no.2 had wrongly insured husband of respondent no.1/complainant and the complaint was barred by limitation and therefore, claim was not liable to be paid. Both the fora below have passed erroneous orders without looking at the objections fled by the petitioner insurance company.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that there has been a delay of 995 days in filing the present revision petition as the company received the impugned order only with the notice of execution issued by the District Forum. The notice of District Forum was received in November 2015 and the revision petition has been filed in February 2016. Thus, in fact, there is no delay if counted from the receipt of the order along with notice of execution. The learned counsel further stated that the petitioner company has a very strong case on merit and therefore, the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice.

8. On the other hand, it was stated by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that in a matter with similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 25.11.2016 in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sugiya Devi and another has ordered the total insurance amount to be deposited by the insurance company before the District Forum and the same would be released to the complainant by the District Forum without asking for any security. Therefore nothing remains pending in this revision petition as the same may be disposed of by ordering the insurance company to deposit the insurance amount before the District Forum and the same should be released in favour of the complainant/respondent no.1 by the District Forum.

9. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 further argued that this bench in RP No.2608 of 2016 decided on 10.2.2018, though dismissed the revision petition but left open the dispute between the insurance company and GTFS subject to order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No. 7732, 7889-7955 of 2016. He stated that in RP No.1752 of 2016 and RP No. 122 of 2016 decided on 13.4.2017, this Commission only dismissed the revision petitions without observing anything on the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.2. The learned counsel argued that this bench of the Commission has to pass order similar to that passed by the coordinate bench and to support his contentions, he referred to the following cases:

1. A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, 9988) 2 SC C 602 at Paragraph 183

2. Venkateswara Rice Mill Vs. State of A.P. (1971) 2 SCC 650 at paragraph 9

3. State of Punjab Vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 26 at paragraph 339

10. It was contended that if the revision petition is decided on the condition that the dispute between petitioner and respondent no.2 should be governed by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi and another, SLP No.7732 of 2016, then it will deprive the respondent no.2 from availing any remedy against this order.

11. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also stated that this revision petition has been filed with a delay of about 1,000 days and therefore the revision petition is liable to be dismissed only on this count. No proper reason has been given in the application for condonation of delay for condoning the delay. The appeal was filed by the petitioner themselves and therefore, they should have monitored the progress of the decision of the State Commission in the appeal. It was a lapse on their part that they did not take cognizance of the order passed by the State Commission in time. The delay cannot be condoned on such types of flimsy grounds.

12. I have carefully perused the record and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. First, it is seen that there is a delay of 995 days in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay filed in this regard reads as under:-

“3. That the impugned judgment was applied on 05.03.2013 and had been delivered on 08.03.2013 by the Hon’ble State Commission. As per the appellant, the dealing counsel was not able to carry the case properly due to his illness and also had not provided the copy of the order timely to the petitioner in order to take a proper decision.

4. That the order of State Commission was pronounced on 09.11.2012 and same was provided to the office of the petitioner at Dhansar, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) only on 02.11.2015 by the Ld. District Forum, Dhanbad along with the Execution notice. Consequently, the petitioner contacted the dealing advocate, who was not aware about the Hon’ble State Commission and came to notice of the petitioner that the appeal was not defended properly. After responding the mail dt.04.11.2015, the entire case file was sent by Divisional Office, Ranchi, who also informed that as per the dealing advocate he did not carry the case properly due to his illness and also provided a copy of medical documents to support his illness. The copy of dealing advocate letter dt. 12.11.2015 with discharge summary dt. 18.12.2012 are enclosed as Annexure-P-1.

5. That already in the cases of above nature specifically in view of the memorandum of understanding with the respondent no.2, the petitioner has already challenged around 67 orders of the State Commission by way of 67 Revision petitions before this Hon’ble Commission, which had been decided on 27.11.2015 vide a common order passed under Revision Petition No.3095/2010. As the petitioner’s Head Office at Mumbai, has taken the decision in January, 2016 to file the Special Leave Petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to challenge the order dt. 27.11.2015, therefore, the present revision petition is also filed at this stage without treating the same as an exception, in view of the decision taken by the Head Office, Mumbai vide its letter dt.28.01.2016 written to Manager, Delhi. Consequently all the record of the case was also forwarded to the Delhi Office to take further steps.

6. That the insurance company has assigned the matter for filing the revision petition to the undersigned on 12.02.2016. The undersigned received the file and prepared the revision petition. Thereafter, the drafted revision petition was sent to the insurance company for approval sanction and signatures. On sanction of the draft as prepared of revision, the same was thereafter handed over to the counsel for the insurance company for taking further steps to file the revision and accordingly on the 6 sets were prepared to file before this Hon’ble Commission.”

13. From the above application, it is clear that first the petitioner company got the copy of the impugned order on 08.03.2013, but they did not take any action on account of illness of the counsel. Secondly, they received the same order along with the order of the District Forum issued in the form of notice in the execution petition in November, 2015. Thus, it is clear that there was no action from March 2013 to November 2015 by the petitioner company though they had received the copy of the impugned order. Condonation of delay can only be considered if there is bona fide and reasonable diligence in pursuing the petition as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 as under:-

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition”.

14. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, has observed that even if the delay may be justified and explained, it is not necessary for a court to condone the delay and this will depend on the examination of the facts of the case and the decision of the trial court. In fact, the judgment reads as under:-

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

15. From the above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that even if sufficient cause has been shown, the court may not condone the delay on the basis of the overall facts, circumstances and merit of the case.

16. In a similar matter in SLP No.7732 of 2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 29.4.2016 had ordered that the insurance company shall deposit 50% of the amount before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the same shall be released to the complainant without any security. Later on, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.11.2016, modified its earlier order dated 29.4.2016, by ordering that the complainant need not appear in the matter as the dispute now remains basically between the insurance company and respondent no.2 and insurance company shall deposit the remaining 50% insured amount also with the District Forum and the District Forum shall release this amount to the complainant without any security. This means that Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed payment of 100% amount of insurance to the complainant without any security and

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

his presence also has been dispensed with treating the pending matter as a dispute between the insurance company and respondent no.2. 17. Once the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been passed in a similar case, no discretion remains with this Commission to take any other view in the matter. Thus, it is seen that in the facts, circumstances and merit of the case also, no case is made out for condoning such a huge delay of 995 days which is otherwise also not condonable in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) wherein the following has been held:- “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras.” 18. In view of the above discussion, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently the revision petition no.565 of 2016 is also dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 M/s. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust, Established & Namakkal Represented by Chairman, V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary Cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Lalatendu Nayak & Another Versus Supertech Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-09-2020 Rhonpal Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus New Delhi Municipal Council & Others High Court of Delhi
23-09-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Nirmala Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Guptasons Jewellers & Gems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Versus Shanthamma & Another High Court of Karnataka
18-09-2020 Priyamvada Devi Birla (Dec.) & Others Versus Ajay Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through The Regional Manager, New Delhi Versus Dinesh Vijay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager Versus Girija & Another High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, Rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin Versus The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
09-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Represented by Its Manager, Calicut Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 The Dental Council of India, Aiwan-E-Galib Marg, New Delhi Versus PSR Lakhmi Bhuvaneshwari Preethi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Karaikudi Versus Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Durga Branch, Varanasi, Through Its Branch Manager & Another Versus Leelawati Devi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-09-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Somwati & Others Supreme Court of India
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Hyundai Motor India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Harshad Ramji Chauhan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust Established and Administering, Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research, Rep. by Chairman V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 M/s. Omaxe Limited, New Delhi & Another Versus Divya Karun & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2020 Inter Gold India Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2020 Krishi Upaj Mandi Versus Shashi Prabha Devi & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Girija Devi Agrawal Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Social Welfare & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
26-08-2020 Davinder Nath Sethi & Another Versus M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Versus Maninderjeet Singh Khera National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2020 Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Represented by its Vicepresident (Legal) Ch. Viswanath Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-08-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Villupuram Versus J. Manimaran & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 Sanjay Nayyar Versus State of NCT Delhi, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Singhla Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 R.K. Dawra Versus Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
21-08-2020 Pankaj Chaudhary, HCS, Special Secretary, Public Health Engineer Department Versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
21-08-2020 Dr. Parimal Roy, Working as Director, Indian Council of Agricultural Research NIVEDI Versus The President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
19-08-2020 V.K. Somarajan Pillai Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Govt. of India, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
19-08-2020 Ishwar Dass Versus Bimla Devi & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
19-08-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 Babubhai Bhagvanji Tandel Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-08-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-08-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Astha Cement Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-08-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Versus Shailendra Prasad Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-08-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chhattisgarh & Another Versus Astu Ram & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-08-2020 Kasmikoya Biyyammabiyoda & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Home Secretary, Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
13-08-2020 Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd, New Delhi & Another Versus State of Bihar & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
12-08-2020 Scott Christian College, Rep.by its Correspondent S. Byju Nizeth Paaul Versus The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-08-2020 Abdul Saleem Pattakal & Another Versus The Director General Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, A-Wing, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
07-08-2020 M/s. B & B Growing, New Delhi & Another Versus Capital Co-Op. Group Housing Society Ltd., Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-08-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, New Delhi Versus M/s. Nalwa Investment Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
07-08-2020 Surender Singh Dahiya, Additional Director, Agriculture Department, Government of Haryana (Panchkula) Versus Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
07-08-2020 Citibank N.A., New Delhi Versus Deepanshu Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-08-2020 Rajiv Bal Versus Harrison Industries, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-08-2020 Peter & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Kottayam, Rep. by The Manager Versus O.S. Varghese & Others High Court of Kerala
04-08-2020 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others Versus Siva Lakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 M/s. Pioneer Power Ltd, Rep. by its Chief General Manager, Therkukattur Village, Ramanathapuram Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-08-2020 Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Capt. Bibhuti Mohan Jha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 P. Anil Kumar @ Chempazhanthi Anil & Others Versus The Indian Red Cross Society, Represented by Its Secretary General, National IRCS, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
03-08-2020 Devi Marine Food Export Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director, Abdul Razzak Ganj, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Manager Versus Dr. Vikas Sethi & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Som Nath Bhatt Versus Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Jalgaon Golden Transport Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-07-2020 Som Nath Bhatt Versus Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 C.R. Mahesh Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
28-07-2020 N. Madhavan Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-07-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Vikash Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Amar Chand Singh Versus C.B.I. Thru. Director, New Delhi & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-07-2020 Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., Through Its Authorized Representative, New Delhi Versus Thakar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus M/s. D.D Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Panipat National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, Chennai Versus Murugan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Kabilan Manoharan Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport Bhavan, New Delhi, & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
22-07-2020 M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (Through Its Authorised Representative), New Delhi Versus Sukhmal Jain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi Versus Mukesh Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Branch Manager, Sahara India Dumraon Branch Buxar Bihar Versus Raj Kumari Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, R. Natraj Versus M/s. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited, Represented by its Director, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Raksha Devi Vedrsus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
16-07-2020 Kamlesh Devi & Others Versus Bhola Nath & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
16-07-2020 G. Suneetha Versus The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-07-2020 M/s. Sanwaliya Tractor Sales & Service, Rajasthan & Others Versus Bhagwati Devi Bhatt & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-07-2020 M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Rep. by its Authorised representative Goregaon Mumbai Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2020 M/s. P.R. Mani Electronics Rep. by its Proprietor, Thiruvannamalai Versus Union of India Rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Additional Secretary (Legal), New Delhi Versus Anil Laxman Matade National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-07-2020 Khem Raj Verma & Others Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
09-07-2020 Abdul Wahid Bhat Versus Union of India, through Defence Secretary, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
09-07-2020 Ravindra Versus Union of India, through its Under Secretary, General Administration Department, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-07-2020 Velankani Information Systems Limited, Represented by its Manging Director, Kiron D. Shah Versus Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-07-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Coimbatore Versus Mettilda & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-07-2020 Rajesh Kumar Versus Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi