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



P.D. Mathew v/s State of Kerala, Represented by Principal Secretary Transport, Thiruvananthapuram & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- PD CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253MH2011PTC221370

Company & Directors' Information:- A M MATHEW AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65923TZ1955PTC000010

    WP(C). No. 16773 of 2019 (V)

    Decided On, 23 July 2019

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

    For the Petitioner: V. Rajendran (Perumbavoor), N. Rajesh, Advocates. For the Respondents: R4, Georgekutty Mathew, SC, R1 to R3, R5 & R6, K.J. Manu Raj, Government Pleader.



Judgment Text

1. The petitioner is the owner of 9.75 ares of property covered by sale deed No.1133/67 dated 28.04.1967 of the SRO, Poonjar, and Ext.P1 tax receipt dated 06.07.2017. The petitioner constructed a three-storied building in the said property, which has been assigned with building Nos.III/487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495 and 496 of Erattupetta Municipality and the same is let out to tenants. The ground floor of the building is occupied by a photo studio, stationery shop, tailoring shop, jewellery, gas stove company and an eye clinic. The first floor is occupied by Kottayam District Co-operative Bank and the second floor is occupied by Agricultural Development Bank and an Advocate Office. The building is abutting Erattupetta - Pala Road on the south and Erattupetta - Thodupuzha Road on the east. The petitioner constructed the building after leaving sufficient parking space on both sides, for the vehicles of the tenants and their customers.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that pickup jeeps, autorickshaws, etc. are being parked in front of the building, blocking ingress and egress of the tenants and their customers. In order to substantiate the said fact, the petitioner has placed on record Ext.P2 photographs. The has petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 11.05.2018 before the Secretary of the 4th respondent Municipality, which was followed by Ext.P4 representation dated 28.02.2019. The petitioner has also submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 28.02.2019 before the 5th respondent Inspector of Police and Ext.P6 representation dated 28.02.2019 before the 3rd respondent Regional Transport Officer. The document marked as Ext.P7 is the information provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the Public Information Officer in the Office of the 4th respondent Municipality, which is dated 10.05.2019, wherein it has been stated that there is no approved stand for pickup taxies. The petitioner has also submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 04.06.2019 before the 2nd respondent Deputy Transport Commissioner.

3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent Municipality, wherein it has been stated that there is no notified taxi stand or parking area in front of the petitioner's building. The Municipality is taking steps for rearranging the traffic system in Erattupetta Town, with the sanction and assistance of respondents 2, 3 and 5. After that rearrangement, the grievance of the petitioner will be solved.

4. On 18.07.2019 when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent pointed out that in front of the petitioner's building, there is a footpath and as per Ext.P2 photographs, vehicles are being parked in front of that building, blocking pedestrian passage through that footpath. The learned Government Pleader sought time to get instruction from the 5th respondent.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent.

6. Pleadings and materials on record would show that the place where the pickup trucks are being parked in front of the petitioner's building is not a notified taxi stand or parking area. As evident from Ext.P2 photographs, vehicles are being parked in front of the petitioner's building, blocking pedestrian passage through the footpath on the side of Erattupetta – Pala road.

7. The Indian Road Congress has formulated Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities, vide IRC:103-2012. Indian Road Congress was set up in December, 1934 on the recommendations of the Indian Road Development Committee (Jayakar Committee) set up by the Government of India, with the objective of Road Development in India. Indian Road Congress works in collaboration with Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH). The Director General (Road Development) and Special Secretary, MoRTH, is the Honorary Treasurer of Indian Road Congress. There are three Apex Committees, which are responsible for formulation and updation of Codes of Practices, Standards and Guidelines, i.e., Highways Specifications and Standards Committee; Bridges Specifications and Standards Committee; and General Specifications and Standards Committee. There are Technical Committees under each Apex Committees. The Director General (Road Development) and Special Secretary, MoRTH; the President and Secretary General of Indian Road Congress are Ex-Officio members of all Technical Committees.

8. In Chapter 1 of IRC:103-2012 'footpath' is defined as a portion of right of way of road used for the movement of pedestrian. Chapter 2 of IRC:103-2012 deals with introduction. As per Para 2.3, all pedestrian facilities ensure social equity. Developing a pedestrian environment means more than laying down a footpath or installing a signal. A truly viable pedestrian system takes into account both the big pictures and smallest details-from how a city is formed and built to what materials are under our feet. Chapter 3 of IRC:103-2012 deals with its scope. As per Para 3.2, the guidelines cover engineering design and planning aspects of pedestrian facilities on roadside and at road crossing in urban and semi-urban areas. As per Para 3.3, the guidelines are intended for use by the local authorities responsible for creating and maintaining semi-urban and urban road transport facilities. The guidelines are framed to serve the objectives of universal accessibility and social equity for sustainable transportation. As per Para 4.2, efforts should be made to create such conditions that pedestrians are not forced to walk in unsafe circumstances and that the motorists respect the position of pedestrians. As per Para 4.5, the mobility and safety of all pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility should be ensured to promote inclusive mobility and universal accessibility. As per Para 4.6, regular maintenance of all facilities and design elements should be undertaken to maintain accessibility, reliability, usability, safety and continuity. As per Para 4.7, while planning and designing pedestrian facilities, overall objectivity could be continuity and overall safety.

9. Chapter 5 of IRC:103-2012 deals with pedestrian level of service. As per Para 5.1, pedestrian spaces should be designed in consideration of human convenience and have to be qualitatively suitable to the needs of human beings. 9 parameters affect the quality of service of a footpath out of which 6 are pertaining to physical characteristics of footpath facility, like footpath width, footpath surface, obstruction, encroachment, potential of vehicular conflict and continuity. The 3 user factors are pedestrian volume, security, comfort and walking environment. Para 5.2 of IRC:103-2012 deals with concept of pedestrian level of service; Para 5.3 deals with physical characteristics; and Para 5.4 deals with user characteristics. Para 6 of IRC:103-2012 deals with pedestrian facility design standards.

10. In view of the Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities formulated by the Indian Road Congress, vide IRC:103-201, no parking of vehicles is legally permissible on the 'footpath', which is the portion of right of way of road used for the movement of pedestrians. Any such parking of vehicles on the footpath of public streets will force pedestrians to walk in unsafe circumstances, which will adversely affect the mobility and safety of all pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility.

11. In exercise of the powers under Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in supersession of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989, the Central Government made the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. Clause (b) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'carriageway' to mean the part or parts of a road normally used by vehicular traffic, whether separate from one another by a dividing strip or a difference of level or not. Clause (j) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'parking' to mean the bringing of a vehicle to a stationary position and causing it to wait for any purpose other than that of immediately taking up or setting down persons, goods or luggage and includes stopping for more than three minutes. Clause (o) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'road user', which includes a person driving or traveling on the road in a vehicle or otherwise and a pedestrian. Clause (r) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'stopping' to mean halting a vehicle for a very short duration out of free will, either to allow the passenger to board or alight or quick loading or unloading of goods.

12. Regulation 5 deals with duties of drivers and riders. As per clause (4) of Regulation 5, the driver and the riders shall take special care and precautions to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly and the differently-abled persons. As per clause (5) of Regulation 5, the driver shall ensure that his vehicle, while moving or when stationary does not cause any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or to occupants of any property.

13. Regulation 22 deals with stopping and parking. As per sub-clause (iv) of clause (1) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be stopped on, or five meters before a pedestrian crossing. As per sub-clause (b) of clause 2 of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be parked on a main road or at a stretch of road where the notified maximum speed limit is 50 km per hour or more. As per sub-clause (c), a vehicle shall not be parked on footpath, cycle path and pedestrian crossing; as per sub-clause (d), before or after an intercession or a junction upto a distance of 50 meters from the edge of intercession or junction; as per subclause (e), where it would block access to designated parking places; as per subclause (i), in front of the entrance or exit of a property; and as per sub-clause (m), if it is likely to obstruct other vehicle or cause inconvenience to any person.

14. Regulation 39 deals with pedestrian crossing, footpath and cycle track. As per clause (1) of Regulation 39, while approaching an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, the driver shall slow down, stop and give way to pedestrian, users of invalid carriages and wheelchairs. As per clause (2), if the traffic has come to a standstill, the driver shall not drive the vehicle on the pedestrian crossing, if he is unlikely to be able to move further and thereby block the pedestrian crossing. As per sub-clause (3), when a road is provided with a footpath or cycle track, no vehicle shall drive on such footpath or track, except on the directions of a Police Officer in uniform or where traffic signs permitting some movements have been displayed.

15. As per the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, referred to hereinbefore, the driver of a vehicle has to ensure that his vehicle, while moving or when stationary does not cause any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or to occupants of any property. No parking of a motor vehicle is legally permissible on footpath, cycle path and pedestrian crossing or in front of the entrance or exit of a property.

16. The Apex Court in W.P.(C)No.295 of 2012 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, by a public-spirited citizen, seeking enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate treatment of accident victims, constituted a 'Committee on Road Safety', vide its order dated 22.04.2014 - S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2014) 6 SCC 36], and the said Committee was notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, on 30.05.2014. In the said decision, after referring to the revenant provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with licensing; vehicular fitness; etc. the Apex Court observed that, while improvements in different spheres of law are imminent with passage of time, any change of law has to be preceded by serious debate and consideration of a wide variety of factors all of which takes time. While such changes or amendments can be brought in only upon completion of the necessary exercise, the enforcement of the existing laws would stand on an entirely different footing. Strict and faithful enforcement of all existing laws and norms must be insisted upon not only as an absolute principle of law but also for the huge beneficial effects thereof. Though directions to the States to enforce the existing laws can be issued even in their absence, the Apex Court observed that the matter cannot be allowed to rest merely by issuance of directions. Observance and implementation of the directions to be issued by the Court in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India would require continuing scrutiny and therefore, the Apex Court decided to monitor such implementation and to make the States accountable for any inaction or lapse in this regard. The Apex Court impleaded all the States as party respondents and directed the Government of each State to effectively implement and enforce all the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of which the States have the authority and obligation to so act under the Constitution, in addition to the tasks specifically alluded to in the subsequent paragraphs of that order dated 22.04.2014. By the said order, the Apex Court constituted a Committee having the composition, as enumerated in paragraphs 35, and the functions, as enumerated in paragraphs 36.4 to 36.8, to undertake the process of monitoring on behalf of the Court, the measures undertaken by the Central Government and the State Governments and the extent of affirmative action on part of the Union and the States, from time to time.

17. In W.P.(C).No.295 of 2012, the Apex Court delivered a judgment dated 30.11.2017 - S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2018) 13 SCC 532]. In the said decision, the Apex Court observed that all States and Union Territories are expected to implement the Road Safety Policy with all due earnestness and seriousness. The responsibility and functions of the Road Safety Council constituted in terms of Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act will be as recommended by the Committee on Road Safety constituted as per the order dated 22.04.2014 and Road Safety Councils should periodically review the laws and take appropriate remedial steps whenever necessary. In paragraph 94.13 of the said decision, in the context of Lane Driving, the Apex Court held that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has already issued the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, vide G.S.R.634 (E) dated 23.06.2017, which should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly. Paragraphs 94.1 to 94.25 of the said decision contains various directions issued by the Apex Court. In paragraph 95, the Apex Court has made it clear that, if there is any doubt or clarity is required in implementing those directions, the State Government or Union Territory concerned is at liberty to move the Committee on Road Safety.

18. In the instant case, as can be seen from Ext.P2 photographs, pickup jeeps are being parked in front of the petitioner's building blocking pedestrian passag

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e through the footpath on the side of Erattupetta – Pala road and also the ingress and egress of the tenants, the customers and their vehicles, in violation of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 and also the Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities formulated by the Indian Road Congress, vide IRC:103-201. As per the statement filed on behalf of the 4th respondent Municipality, there is no notified taxi stand or parking area in front of the petitioner's building and the Municipality is taking steps for rearranging the traffic system in Erattupetta Town, with the sanction and assistance of respondents 2, 3 and 5. 19. The petitioner has made Ext.P3 representation dated 28.02.2019 before the 3rd respondent Regional Transport Officer. The 3rd respondent shall place that petition before the additional 6th respondent, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam and the said authority shall take necessary action on that representation, with notice to the petitioner, the secretary of the 4th respondent Municipality and also the representatives of the drivers/owners of the pickup jeeps, etc., strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the provisions referred to hereinbefore, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time, the 5th respondent Sub Inspector of Police shall ensure that parking of pickup trucks in front of the petitioner's building is not blocking pedestrian passage through the footpath on the side of Erattupetta – Pala road also the ingress and egress of the tenants, the customers and their vehicles to the petitioner's building.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

11-09-2020 Mathew Lawrence Versus Rockey C. Neroth & Another & Another High Court of Kerala
10-09-2020 P.D. Vinay Versus Conica Shambaya High Court of Karnataka
19-08-2020 Mathew Sameul Versus Edapadi K. Palanisamy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 George Elamplakkadu@Vakkachan Powathil Versus A.V. Mathew@Samkutty Vettupalam & Others High Court of Kerala
27-07-2020 M/s. Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Its Director Shaji K. Mathew, Vyttila Versus The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Cheriyan Mathew, Member, The Kanakkary Service Cooperative Bank Limited & Others Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Kottayam & Another High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 T.K. Mathew Versus The Secretary & Registrar of Marriages, Thalavady Grama Panchayat, Alapuzha & Another High Court of Kerala
05-06-2020 Prince Mathew, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Idukki & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
26-05-2020 Rajan Arjunan Versus M/s. KLM Axiva Finvest Ltd. Kattappana, Represented by Its Credit Control Officer, Bineesh Mathew & Another High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 Royson Mathew Versus K. Minimol & Another High Court of Kerala
23-03-2020 Chinchu Mathew Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
20-03-2020 Union of India Versus P.D. Sunny & Others Supreme Court of India
11-03-2020 M/s. Logical Developers Private Limited, New Delhi, Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Jose Joseph, Kochi & Another Versus M/s. Muthoot Mini Financiers Private Limited, Pathanamthitta, Represented by Its Chairman & Managing Director Roy M. Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
05-03-2020 V.P. Mytheen Versus Joji P. Mathew Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
03-03-2020 Hotel Surya, Iritty, Represented by Its Managing Partner, K.T. Mathew Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Department of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
12-02-2020 Jose Mathew Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies (B) Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
06-02-2020 State of Kerala, Rep. by The District Collector, Idukki & Another Versus P.D. Raveendran & Another High Court of Kerala
28-01-2020 Aleyamma Mathew, Thiruvalla, Formerly working as Regional Manager Recover, M/s. Kerala Housing Finance Limited, Branch Office at Pathanamthitta Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
27-01-2020 T.V. Thomas, P.D. Teacher, Govt. U.P. School, Thottumukkom, Kozhikode & Others Versus Joint Secretary, General Education Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2020 George Mathew Versus T.A.M. Pookkoya Thangal & Another High Court of Kerala
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India
07-01-2020 Jencin Mathew Versus Boby P. Augustine High Court of Kerala
20-12-2019 Deepa Mathew Versus Corporate Manager Catholicate & M.D. Schools, Devalokam, Kottayam High Court of Kerala
19-12-2019 Biju Mathew Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
18-12-2019 Mathew Inacio Abreo Versus --------- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-12-2019 Mathew Varghese Versus Krishnan, Kuttanad & Others High Court of Kerala
02-12-2019 P.D. Sudheeshkumar Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
26-11-2019 Mathew Thomas Versus Augustine Sanjeevi Beattie High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 Mathew Daniel Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
18-11-2019 Nishad Mathew Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
12-11-2019 Mathew K. Jacob Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary to The Government, Department of Financial Service (Banking Division), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
06-11-2019 M/s. Oriental Kuries Ltd. Represented By Its Chairman P.D. Jose Versus Lissa & Others Supreme Court of India
31-10-2019 Union of India Versus Tomy Mathew High Court of Kerala
29-10-2019 Joy Mathew & Another Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
23-10-2019 C. Mathew Versus Kunjumol @ Kathreena High Court of Kerala
10-10-2019 C. Mathew Ignitious, Senior Manager (Emp 40614), The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited Thrissur Versus The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Represented by Its Managing Director, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
04-10-2019 Baby Mathew Versus The District Collector, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
30-09-2019 K.H. Nazar Versus Mathew K. Jacob & Others Supreme Court of India
24-09-2019 Alex T. Mathew Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Additional Chief Secretary (Excise), Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-09-2019 Oktopals Sports, Thrissur Rep. by Its Managing Partner Igni Mathew& Others Versus Chandraprakash & Another High Court of Kerala
08-08-2019 Union of India Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others Versus All India Naval Clerks Association, Represented by General Secretary, T.M. Mathew, Cochin & Others High Court of Kerala
07-08-2019 Malayala Manorama, Represented By Its Chief Editor, Mammen Mathew & Others Versus M/s Future Gaming & Hotel Services Private Limited High Court of Sikkim
26-07-2019 Mathew P. Paul, Member No. 1037, Kottayam District Police Co-Operative Society Ltd., Kottayam & Others Versus The State Co-Operative Election Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by its Additional Registrar/Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
23-07-2019 Philip P. Mathew & Another Versus The Regional Transport Authority, Represented by Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
22-07-2019 Deepu Mathew Versus The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
09-07-2019 Mariyam Shibu Mathew Versus M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-07-2019 State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus Sabu Mathew, Headmaster, St. Augustine's High School, Ramapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-06-2019 Sajan Mathew Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
12-06-2019 Annie M. Mathew Versus Thomas High Court of Kerala
06-06-2019 P.D. Versus U.W. High Court of Delhi
22-05-2019 The Manager, Samsung Authorized Service Centre, Melevettippuram, Pathanamthitta Versus K.M. Mathew Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
20-05-2019 Mathew Scaria Versus The District Magistrate/District Collector Collectorate, Kottayam & Another High Court of Kerala
02-05-2019 Maruti Suzuki India Limited Versus Shaiju P. Mathew & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
16-04-2019 Hotel Theni International, Rep. by its Managing Director Vinod Mathew Versus The Assistant Commissioner(CT), Commercial Tax Department, Theni-II Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-04-2019 Andrews Mathew Versus Madura Coats Ltd., Ambasamudram Taluk, Through it's Manager, (Engineering Services), S. Balakrishnan Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-04-2019 Siemens Limited Seethakathi Business Centre, Rep by its Manager - PD LD Project Management Gurubaran Senthurpandian, Chennai Versus M/s. Marg Limited, having its Registered Office at “Marg Axis”, 4/138, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2019 Gheevarghese Kathanar & Others Versus Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
05-04-2019 The Managing Director, Hi tech Engineering and Eco Solution (P) Ltd., Edayar, Paravoor, Ernakulam Versus Mathew Philip, Vettikkad Estate, Kaliasanad & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
29-03-2019 Mathew Thomas & Another Versus K.A. John & Others High Court of Kerala
21-03-2019 A.G. Mathew Versus Kerala State Election Commission, Represented by State Election Commissioner, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
12-03-2019 Sunil John Mathew Versus K.L. Lency & Others High Court of Kerala
07-02-2019 V.K.L. Resorts India Pvt.Ltd., Represented by Its Director, Shaji Mathew, Cochin Versus The Director, Department of Fire & Rescue Services, Kerala Fire & Rescue Services, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
25-01-2019 Molly Abraham & Another Versus Minu Susan Mathew & Another High Court of Kerala
10-01-2019 Kurien & Others Versus Renjith T. Mathew High Court of Kerala
04-01-2019 M/s. Aculife Healthcare Private Ltd., Gujarat Previously Known as Nirma Limited (Healthcare Division), Represented by Its Regional Sales Manager, Ajish Mathew & Another Versus The Kerala Medical Service Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Managing Director & Others High Court of Kerala
01-01-2019 Chairman, Coffee Board, Bangalore & Another Versus M.O. Mathew & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
20-12-2018 M/s. Lourdes Hospital, Pachalam, Represented by Its Director & Others Versus Dr. Abraham Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
07-12-2018 Union of India Versus Col.(Ts) P.D. Poonekar Supreme Court of India
03-12-2018 P.C. Mathew, Kannur Versus J.M. Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai & Others Debts Recovery Tribunal Ernakulam
16-11-2018 Aju Mathew & Others Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary, Home(C)Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
16-11-2018 Joby Mathew Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
16-11-2018 Mathew K. Jacob & Others Versus District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Represented by Its Chairman, The District Collector, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
13-11-2018 Meera V. Mathew Versus Vivek K. John Supreme Court of India
23-10-2018 Mathew Versus James Jacob & Others High Court of Kerala
16-10-2018 Babu Versus Thomas Mathew & Another High Court of Kerala
04-10-2018 English Indian Clays Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Manager (Mines), Jose Mathew Versus The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
07-09-2018 Mathew Cyriac, Kochi & Another Versus South India Bank Ltd, Kochi & Another Debts Recovery Tribunal Ernakulam
07-08-2018 The Federal Bank Limited, Mundur Branch, Thrissur District, Represented by Its Authorized Officer, Sajan Philip Mathew, Assistant Vice President Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
02-08-2018 Roy M. Mathew Versus State Through, Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-08-2018 C.J. Mathew Versus Greendot Hotels & Resorts (India) P. Ltd. National Company Law Tribunal Chennai
25-07-2018 The Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Driector & Others Versus K.T. Mathew, General Manager, Kerala State Construction Corporation & Others High Court of Kerala
05-07-2018 Biju Mathew Abraham Versus GIE Plantations Pvt .Ltd. Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
26-06-2018 Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus Hotel Mariya, Rep. by Its Partner, Mathew Cyriac, Pala & Another High Court of Kerala
20-06-2018 Babu Mathew Versus P.K. Limu & Others High Court of Kerala
20-06-2018 Majeesh K. Mathew Versus State of Kerala, Through Inspector of Police, Pala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Another High Court of Kerala
14-06-2018 Thomas Cherian Versus Kurien Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
25-05-2018 Mathew Alex Versus The Kanjirappally Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
24-05-2018 P.D. Nanjegowda Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
22-05-2018 Nikhil Mathew Versus State Bank of India High Court of Kerala
21-05-2018 John Mathew Versus The Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General), Adoor & Others High Court of Kerala
16-05-2018 Rojer Mathew Versus South Indian Bank Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
07-05-2018 Rojer Mathew Versus South Indian Bank Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
06-04-2018 N.P. Mathew & Others Versus The Managing Director, Bhagheeratha Enginnering Ltd. & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-04-2018 Thomas P. Mathew Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, General Education, Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
01-03-2018 George Tharakan Versus Mathew High Court of Kerala
30-01-2018 Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Another Versus K.C. Mathew Supreme Court of India
30-01-2018 John Mathew Versus Tahsildar & Others High Court of Kerala
19-01-2018 M/s. Associated Automotives Sales Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorised Signatory, P.D. Prasad Versus R.K. Mahesh (since died) & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
10-01-2018 The Manager, Sulthan Batheri Service Co-operative Bank, Cheeral Branch, Cheeral.P.O, Wayanad Rep.by its Secretary in charge .M.O. Mathew & Another Versus Ashokan Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram