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



Nupur Sales Corporation, through its legal & constituted attorney, Sanjay v/s Mayur Jethwa


Company & Directors' Information:- SALES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29191GJ1985PTC007880

Company & Directors' Information:- SANJAY SALES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900GJ2009PTC056258

Company & Directors' Information:- SANJAY CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U16009GJ1999PLC035814

Company & Directors' Information:- MAYUR CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201GJ2010PTC059500

Company & Directors' Information:- MAYUR INDIA (PVT) LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1984PTC037624

Company & Directors' Information:- MAYUR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U65910WB1991PTC051879

Company & Directors' Information:- MAYUR SALES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB1979PTC031929

Company & Directors' Information:- M J SALES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101MH1988PTC049326

Company & Directors' Information:- NUPUR SALES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51399DL2002PTC116543

    Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2017

    Decided On, 13 July 2018

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH PITALE

    For the Appellant: M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Shashikant Borkar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Oral Judgment:

1. By this appeal, the appellant (original complainant) has challenged judgment and order dated 19.06.2015 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur (trial Court) in Summary Criminal Case no.12999 of 2013, whereby the respondent (original accused) has been acquitted by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The case of the appellant was that he was a super stockist of Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic items of various companies and that the respondent used to purchase certain items from it and that they had regular transactions. It was claimed by the appellant that the respondent had issued a cheque of Rs.49,444/- dated 16.01.2013 in favour of the appellant in respect of purchase of certain items. It was further the case of the appellant that when the said cheque was deposited, it was dishonoured. Therefore, the appellant was constrained to issue notice to the respondent for making good the payment for the value of the said cheque, but the respondent failed to respond to the said notice. Consequently, the appellant filed complaint before the trial Court against the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act.

3. In order to support its case, the appellant placed on record bills dated 05.09.2011, 14.09.2011 and 09.05.2011 (Exhs. 19, 20 and 21) pertaining to items purchased by the respondent. The amounts stated in the said bills came to a total of Rs.49,444/-, which was the amount for which the cheque dated 16.01.2013 (Exh.22) had been issued by the respondent. The appellant also placed on record copy of the notice issued to the respondent and the cheque in question. Apart from this, a legally authorised person representing the appellant entered into the witness box and deposed in support of the complaint.

4. The respondent, neither sent any reply to the notice sent by the appellant nor did he file any submissions or reply in response to the complaint filed by the appellant before the trial Court. The respondent also did not enter the witness box in support of his defence. He simply relied upon the material placed on record by the appellant and cross-examination of the witness who had appeared in support of the complaint before the trial Court.

5. The trial Court considered the evidence and material on record and it found that although the respondent had not adduced any direct evidence, the material that came on record in cross-examination of the appellant was sufficient to support the defence of the respondent. The trial Court found that although the appellant had specifically claimed in the complaint that the cheque in question was issued by the respondent for cosmetic items, the bills at Exhs. 19, 20 and 21 demonstrated that the items purchased by the respondent were not cosmetic and that they were electrical items like hair straightners. The trial Court further found that the appellant had failed to place on record documents pertaining to payment of octroi on the items sold, which also indicated that the defence of the respondent was probable. On this basis, the trial Court found that although presumption may have arisen against the respondent, he had been able to rebut the same on preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the trial Court acquitted the respondent by the impugned judgment and order.

6. Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that in the present case the respondent had failed to place on record any direct evidence in support of his defence, although it was stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the cheque in question had been issued by way of security. It was further submitted that a perusal of the cross-examination of the witness of the appellant would show that the material that came on record supported the case of the appellant and not the defence of the respondent. It was submitted that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the aforesaid Act operated against the respondent and that he had failed to bring on record any material to rebut the same. It was submitted that, in this situation, the trial Court could not have acquitted the respondent.

7. Mr. Shashikant Borkar, appointed advocate for respondent, submitted that the respondent was only required to demonstrate on the basis of the material on record that his defence was probable. It was submitted that the law did not require the respondent to produce direct evidence or even to enter the witness box to prove his defence in order to rebut the presumption under the provisions of the said Act. It was submitted that when the appellant itself had come with a case that the consideration for which the cheque was issued pertained to sale of cosmetic items, bills showing electric items sold to the respondent negated the case of the appellant. It was submitted that the presumption stood rebutted in the present case and the appellant had failed to prove its case before the Court. It was submitted that when the view taken by the trial Court was a possible view, no interference in appeal was warranted.

8. The learned counsel for both the parties relied on number of judgments pertaining to the effect of presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the aforesaid Act and the manner in which such a presumption could be rebutted.

9. A perusal of Sections 118 and 139 of the aforesaid Act shows that when signature on a cheque is not disputed, it is to be presumed that the same was issued for consideration and for discharge of legal debt or liability. The presumption is certainly rebuttable on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. It is also clear that for rebutting the presumption, the accused need not necessarily adduce direct evidence and that he can do so even on the basis of the material brought on record by the complainant and by discrediting evidence of the witnesses appearing for the complainant. In this regard, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa .vs. Sri Mohan- (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 441 are relevant which reads as follows:-

'27. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof.

28. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of `preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own.'

10. In the case of Kumar Exports .vs. Sharma Carpets – (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 513, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

'20. The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. 21. The accused has also an option to prove the non-existence of consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Once such rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and, thereafter, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act will not again come to the complainant's rescue.'

11. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court needs to be examined in the light of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments quoted above. The trial Court has held in favour of the respondent on the basis, firstly, that while it was the case of the appellant that it had sold cosmetic items to the respondent for which the cheque in question was issued, a perusal of the bills pertaining to sale of items at Exhs. 19, 20 and 21 demonstrated that the items were not cosmetic items, but they were electrical items. Secondly, the trial Court has held that the appellant failed to place on record documents to show that octroi had been paid in respect of the aforesaid items sold to the respondent and that, therefore, an adverse inference was to be drawn against the appellant. On this basis, the trial Court has held that the presumption that did arise in the facts of the present case, stood rebutted and that the appellant had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

12. A perusal of the complaint filed by the appellant and the evidence of the witness who appeared in support of the complaint shows that there were regular transactions between the appellant and the respondent. It was stated in the complaint that the appellant was a super stockist of pharmaceutical and cosmetic items and that the respondent used to purchase items from it. It has come in the evidence of the witness that there was endorsement on the bills in question at Exhs. 19, 20 and 21 indicating that the said items were indeed delivered to the respondent and further that they were delivered by hand. The aforesaid material on record read with the cheque in question Exh.22 demonstrates that the amounts mentioned in the bills at Exhs. 19, 20 and 21 came to a total of Rs.49,444/-, which was the exact amount for which the cheque in question was issued.

13. In this situation, the appellant was clearly able to establish existence of transactions between it and the respondent and further that the cheque in question was indeed issued in respect of purchase of items reflected in the bills at Exhs. 19, 20 and 21. There was no dispute about the fact that the signature on the cheque was that of the respondent. Therefore, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the aforesaid Act operated in full force against the respondent. It has also come on record that the respondent neither sent any reply to the notice issued by the appellant on dischonour of the cheque, nor did he file any submissions or reply to the complaint filed by the appellant. The respondent also did not enter into the witness box to adduce any direct evidence to dispute the case sought to be made out by the appellant before the trial Court. In this backdrop, the approach of the trial Court was clearly erroneous when it held that the respondent had been able to rebut the presumption that arose against him because it was brought on record that while the appellant stated in its complaint that the appellant used to sell cosmetic items to the respondent, the bills in question at Exhs. 19, 20 and 21 pertained to electrical items. This was nothing but hairsplitting and an approach which completely ignored the existence of the material on record showing transactions between the appellant and the respondent. In the cross-examination of the witness who appeared in support of the complaint, there was no material to show that the case of the appellant was discredited in any manner. The emphasis of the trial Court on the proof of payment of octroi not being brought on record by the appellant, was also wholly misplaced because even as per the few documents brought on record by the respondent, proof of payment of octroi would necessarily have been in the custody of the respondent. Therefore, the trial Court erred in drawing an adverse inference against the appel

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

lant on the ground that proof of payment of octroi was not brought on record. 14. Therefore, the respondent could not rely upon the material on record, particularly the cross-examination of the witness of the appellant, to claim that he had rebutted the presumption on preponderance of probabilities. The defence of the respondent indicated in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to the effect that the cheque was issued by way of security, was not supported by any material on record. As noted above, the respondent failed to enter the witness box or adduce any direct evidence in support of such a defence. 15. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent and that the trial Court committed an error in acquitting the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the respondent is convicted for offfence punishable under Section 138 of the aforesaid Act. The respondent shall pay compensation to the appellant of Rs.98,888/- (double the cheque amount) under Section 357 (3) of the Cr.P.C., within a period of three months from today, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 16. Mr. Shashikant Borkar, Advocate readily agreed to argue this appeal on behalf of the respondent at the request of this Court. He has very graciously stated that he is ready to waive fees in the matter. The Court places on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. Borkar in the final hearing of this appeal.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

18-03-2020 Amar Kumar Saraswat Versus M/s. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Anjeli Vaid Versus Sanjay Gupta & Others High Court of Delhi
16-03-2020 M/s. Paul Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Hari Darshan Sevashram Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 M/S. Mayur Construction Company, Maharshtra & Others Versus Hemlata Bakane & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-03-2020 Sanjay Devaji Ramteke Versus The State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-03-2020 Gauri Rohan Bedekar Versus Sujata Sanjay Bedekar & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-03-2020 Sanjay Jain (Dhariwal) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
28-02-2020 Mohamad Ishaq Mohamad Ismail Shaikh Versus Sanjay Barve & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-02-2020 Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Sanjay Dattu Patil High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-02-2020 Brajesh Singh Tomar Versus Sanjay Dubey & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
13-02-2020 Sanjay Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
10-02-2020 Executive Director, Sales And Marketing Renault India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Paramjeet Singh Brar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Sanjay Rajaram Mugade & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-02-2020 Society of Welfare Handicapped Person Versus The Regional Sales Manager, RFCL Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
31-01-2020 Sanjay Vithal Das Sampat Versus Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Represented by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
29-01-2020 Sanjay K Balan & Another Versus The Manager, Customer Services/Correspondence Depdt., SBI, Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd., Haryana Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
29-01-2020 Sanjay Singhal & Another Versus North Goa Planning & Development Authority, Through its Member Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
24-01-2020 Sanjay V. Redkar & Others Versus State of Goa, Through its chief Secretary, Secretariat & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
24-01-2020 Sanjay Marutirao Patil Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
22-01-2020 Rajesh Kumar Agarwal & Another Versus Sanjay Gupta High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-01-2020 Sanjay Kumar Chaubey Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-01-2020 Sangrur Sales Corporation Versus United India Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
17-01-2020 Mayur Farm Pvt. Ltd. Versus Alok Tandon,Chairman N.O.I.D.A. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-01-2020 Sanjay & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
10-01-2020 Sanjay Jaswal Versus S.K. Nanda Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
10-01-2020 Sanjay Das Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
08-01-2020 Sanjay Mahalwal Versus State of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
08-01-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Sanjay Dinkar Magar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-01-2020 Sanjay Chouhan Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
07-01-2020 For the Petitioners: Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondents: ----------- High Court of Judicature at Patna
06-01-2020 Deepa Dinesh Mandrekar Versus Bhatagram Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Represented by its C.E.O. Sanjay Gajanan Parmekar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
03-01-2020 Bank of Baroda and Others. V/S Sanjay Bhatia and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
03-01-2020 Balakrishna Sales Corporation V/S Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Cochin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Bangalore
03-01-2020 Bank of Baroda V/S Sanjay Kumar Ray Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna
18-12-2019 Gurudatta Infrastructures, Through its duly Authorized Person Sanjay Ashok Rode Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
17-12-2019 M/s. Aradhana Distributors Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Sanjay Kumar Patodia Versus M/s. Renault India Pvt. Ltd., T. Nagar High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-12-2019 Kuber (India) Sales Pvt. Ltd, Represented by Sri Debraj Choudhury Versus Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala & Others High Court of Tripura
10-12-2019 Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava Versus Pratibha High Court of Madhya Pradesh
09-12-2019 Sanjay Baburao Randive Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-12-2019 Chet Ram Sanjay Kumar Versus Rajender Prakash Gupta High Court of Delhi
03-12-2019 M. Lakshmi Versus The Secretary D.D.9 Uthangarai Agriculture Producers Co-operative Sales Societies Ltd., Krishnagiri District & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-12-2019 Sanjay Pandey & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-11-2019 Ashok Versus Sunita Sanjay Pawade In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
19-11-2019 Sanjay Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
19-11-2019 The Manager, Machino Techno Sales Ltd. Versus Prithwis Chanda Deb & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-11-2019 Deepak Textile & Another Versus Sanjay Gautam High Court of Delhi
07-11-2019 Sanjay Kumar Saha Versus UCO Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-11-2019 Sanjay Kumar Mitra & Another Versus M/s. Milennium India Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-10-2019 Sanjay Vishnu Barde Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-10-2019 M/s Fortune Automobiles (India) Pvt., Ltd., (Ford authorized sales and services dealers), Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.Nirva Modi & Others Versus Bandi Venu Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
14-10-2019 Sanjay Dagadu Naikawadi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-10-2019 Neil J. Creado & Others Versus Shah Abbas Khan @ Sanjay Khan & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-10-2019 Sanjay Kumar Singla Versus Sahara Prime City Ltd. Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur
24-09-2019 Starkey Laboratories India Pvt Ltd. Versus Sanjay Gujral High Court of Delhi
19-09-2019 Sanjay & Others Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
17-09-2019 Sanjay Bansal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-09-2019 IFCI Ltd. Versus Sanjay Behari & Others Supreme Court of India
16-09-2019 Raj Kumar Das & Another Versus Lovely Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director Sanjay Bagaria & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-09-2019 Sanjay Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation High Court of Delhi
06-09-2019 Sheikhah Fediah Saad Al-Abdullah Al-Sabah & Others Versus Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-08-2019 Annu Sharma Versus Sanjay Sharma High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-08-2019 M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd. Shahnazaf Road Lko.Throu. Director Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Tax Ashok Marg Lko High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-08-2019 Shree Daneshwari Traders V/S Sanjay Jain and Others. Supreme Court of India
21-08-2019 Kunal Sanjay Naik & & Others Versus State of Goa, Through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
14-08-2019 M/s. Porwal Sales Versus M/s. Flame Control Industries High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-08-2019 M/s. Dulichand Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Sree Howrah Stores, partnership firm, represented by its partner, Ashok Kumar & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-08-2019 Kashish Country Resort Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Bansal Sales Corporation High Court of Delhi
02-08-2019 Sanjay Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
23-07-2019 Sanjay Bhardwaj @ Bablu & Another Versus Dinesh Chandra Gupta & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
23-07-2019 Sanjay Singh Bhadauriya Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
22-07-2019 Sanjay Rajak Versus The State of Bihar Supreme Court of India
18-07-2019 Sanjay Kumar & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-07-2019 The Sales Manager, M/s.Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd, Adoor Branch & Another Versus Shaiju.P. Mathew & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
08-07-2019 Sanjay Dewan Versus Licensing Authority & Another High Court of Delhi
01-07-2019 K.C. Sundaram Versus The Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Sales, Planning and Development), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-06-2019 Sanjay Singh & Another Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-06-2019 Annai Satya Nagar and Sanjay Nagar Residents Welfare Association, Represented by R. Srinivasan, Vyasarpadi Versus The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Chennai Circle III High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-06-2019 Sri Sanjay Kr. Singh Versus & Another High Court of Gauhati
17-06-2019 Sanjay Gangrade Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
17-06-2019 G. Malathi Versus The Deputy General Manager, L.P.G. Sales, Indian Oil Corporation, Marketing Division, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2019 Sanjay Gupta Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
04-06-2019 Ashok Dashrath Rana Versus Edit II Production Binaifer Sanjay Kohli & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-06-2019 The State of Maharashtra Versus Sanjay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
24-05-2019 Sanjay Chakraborty & Others Versus Sripati Mandal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-05-2019 State Versus Sanjay Kashyap @ Omi & Others High Court of Delhi
14-05-2019 Sanjay Kumar Versus Trishla Devi & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
10-05-2019 Sanjay Singh Thakur & Others Versus Urmila Thakur High Court of Madhya Pradesh
03-05-2019 Star Health Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sanjay Goyal Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raipur
02-05-2019 M/s. National Properties Through its Proprietor Sanjay Ghansham Jumani Versus Sindhi Immigrants Co-operative Housing Society Ltd & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2019 Sanjay Kumar Joshi Versus The Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise, Indore High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
01-05-2019 In the matter of : M/s. Global Supply chain Solutions Private Limited & Another Versus Registrar of Companies, IIIrd Floor, 'A' Block, Sanjay Complex, Jayendraganj Gwalior (M.P.) National Company Law Tribunal Ahmedabad
30-04-2019 Sanjay Versus Laxmi High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
24-04-2019 Shankar Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - II High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-04-2019 Sanjay Gupta & Others Versus Ajit Maurya, Director, Ford Hospital & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-04-2019 The Deputy General Manager (LPG-Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai Versus M.C. Meyyappan @ Manickam High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-04-2019 TK. Duraimohan Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-04-2019 Mayur Seeds Corporation & Agritech Versus National Seeds Corporation Limited High Court of Delhi
15-04-2019 Dipali Enterprises, Nilanga Versus Sanjay In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
12-04-2019 Sanjay Bansal Versus M/s. Vipul Ltd. (Formerly Known As Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd.) & Another Supreme Court of India


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


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

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

Features Intro Close Box