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



P.S. Radhakrishnan, Kozhikode v/s A. Indu, Thiruvananthapuram


Company & Directors' Information:- INDU PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U92112OR1984PTC001387

    Mat. Appeal. No. 484 of 2007

    Decided On, 20 July 2018

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. HARILAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. BABU

    For the Petitioner: P.K. Muhammed, Advocate. For the Respondents: D. Ganesh Kumar, Advocate, G. Unnikrishnan, Amicus Curiae.



Judgment Text

A.M. Babu, J.

1. The appellant was the husband of the respondent. The respondent gave birth to a child during the continuance of her marriage with the appellant. The appellant denied the paternity of the child. Two petitions were filed before the family court by the appellant against the respondent. One was for divorce. The relief of divorce was decreed. Two reliefs were sought in the other petition. One, a declaration that the appellant is not the father of the child. Two, the appellant should be compensated to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- by the respondent for her having lived in adultery. Both the reliefs were refused by the family court. Hence the appellant has come in appeal.

2. The child was in the womb when the petition was filed. The child was born pending the proceedings. The petition was amended to state that fact. But the child was not impleaded as a respondent. The parties to the proceedings agreed for a DNA test to ascertain the paternity of the child. The test was conducted. The test result favoured the appellant. The family court dismissed the petition holding that the appellant had access to the respondent when the child was begotten. The court relied on the presumption under Sec.112 of the Indian Evidence Act. The appellant wants the finding of the trial court set aside and a decree as sought for by him granted. He relies on the decision in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (AIR 2014 SC 932). The apex court holds that the DNA test result prevails over the conclusive proof under Sec.112 of the Evidence Act in deciding the paternity of a child. But the question which should be considered and decided ahead of the said question is whether the paternity of a child can be decided without the child on the array of parties.

3. We heard Sri.P.K.Muhammed and Sri.D.Ganesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent respectively. Advocate Sri.G.Unnikrishnan was appointed amicus curiae. We heard the learned amicus curiae also.

4. We summarise below the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The child is an unnecessary party to the suit. Its presence in the suit does not have any bearing whatsoever in deciding the suit on merits. The illegitimacy of the child is only incidental to the claim for compensation against the respondent to prove her infidelity. The child's presence in the suit is not necessary to decide the relief of compensation claimed by the appellant. The child has no role in proving its legitimacy or disproving its illegitimacy. The child cannot adduce evidence to prove that its mother and the appellant had access to each other at the relevant time. The DNA test result cannot be reversed even if the child is a party to the suit. The verdict in the suit does not bind the child. The child if it wishes to establish its paternity and legitimacy may do so by separate suit after attaining majority. Dragging the child to the present litigation only causes mental agony to it. No objection was taken by the respondent in her written-statement that the suit was bad for nonjoinder of any necessary party.

5. The learned amicus curiae has submitted that the child is a necessary party to a suit for declaration of its status as any such declaration granted would affect its legal rights and status. It was also argued by the learned amicus curiae that a judgment declaring the illegitimacy of the child without hearing it would be a nullity. The learned counsel for the respondent also argued in the same lines. The learned amicus curiae has referred to the provisions of Sec.10 of the Family Courts Act and Sec.99 and order I rules 3, 9, and 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, Secs 34 and 35 of the Specific Relief Act shall also be read. The learned counsel for the parties and the learned amicus curiae have relied on reported judicial pronouncements in support of their arguments.

6. The learned amicus curiae submitted that going by the findings recorded by the family court, the appellant was not even entitled to a decree for divorce. The appellant sought divorce on three grounds. Adultery, cruelty and desertion were those grounds. The family court found that the appellant failed to prove cruelty and desertion. The ground of adultery was rejected for non-compliance with rule 11 of the Hindu Marriage (Kerala) Rules, 1963. But a decree of divorce was granted finding that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. Irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. However, we leave it there since the respondent did not appeal against the decree of divorce.

7. The child is not a necessary party if the suit is for compensation only. But the appellant seeks a declaration also. He seeks to declare that he is not the father of the child. Thereby the illegitimacy of the child is sought to be declared. If a declaration as sought for is granted, the child is the affected person. The child alone will be the person affected by the declaration. Declaring illegitimacy of the child amounts to bastardising the child. Therefore the child is a necessary party to the suit. Without the child on the party array its paternity and legitimacy cannot be decided to grant the declaration. Its illegitimacy cannot be declared. True, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the decree declaring illegitimacy of the child in its absence on the array of parties does not bind it. But whether or not a decree binds the affected person is not the test to decide whether that person is a necessary party or not to the suit. The declaratory decree will not be binding on the child, but there will be a cloud on its legal character and status. There are rights and obligations attached to the status of a person. Civil consequences flow from the declaration. Therefore, we repeat, the child is a necessary party to the suit. Audi alterem partem is one of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. The child has a right of audience through its guardian before the issue of its legitimacy is decided. We are clear in our minds that the child is a necessary party to the suit since a relief is sought to declare its illegitimacy. The declaration is sought not against the child's mother, but against the child and therefore the child is a necessary party to the suit. The child is a necessary party when the declaration is directed against it.

8. The learned counsel for the parties and the learned amicus curiae have cited reported decisions of the apex court and various high courts. We do not find it necessary to refer to those decisions. For, those were cases where the apex court and the high courts on the facts of those cases decided whether the persons who sought to be impleaded were necessary parties or not to the respective proceedings. Whether a person is a necessary party or not depends upon the facts of each suit and the reliefs sought therein. But we find it appropriate to refer to one decision cited by the learned amicus curiae as the facts of the said case are very close to the facts of the present suit. The decision is Lilamani v. Bien Aime Pouchepalliamballe (2000 (1) Hindu LR (Madras) 374). That was a suit for declaration that no child by name Dilcoumar was born to the 1st defendant through the plaintiff's husband. The child was not made a party to the suit. It was held that the suit without the child on the party array was not maintainable. We are in agreement with the said conclusion of the learned single judge of the Madras High Court.

9. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the presence of the child in the suit has no bearing in deciding the suit on merits. As we have already stated, the child has a right of audience in the suit, through its guardian, for deciding whether the declaratory decree sought for is grantable. We have also stated that the child is a necessary party since the declaration is sought against the child and not against its mother. We are therefore unable to agree with the learned counsel.

10. The opening sentence of paragraph 7 of this order is written by us accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the child's presence in the suit is not necessary to decide the relief of compensation claimed against the respondent. But we are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel that illegitimacy of the child is only incidental to the claim for compensation against the respondent to prove her infidelity. The relief of declaration sought by the appellant cannot be considered incidental to the relief of compensation. Compensation is sought against the respondent for her having allegedly lived in adultery. It is not necessary to seek a declaration as sought for by the appellant to claim compensation. The two reliefs asked for by the appellant are independent of each other and one cannot be linked to the other. Therefore the appellant cannot be heard to say that the relief of declaration is only incidental to the claim for compensation.

11. Another submission of the appellant's learned counsel is that the child has no role in proving its legitimacy or disproving its illegitimacy. The learned counsel has submitted that the child cannot adduce evidence to prove that its mother and the appellant had access to each other at the relevant time. The aforenoted submissions too do not impress us. The capability of a person to adduce evidence by himself on a disputed fact is not the test to decide whether he is a necessary party or not. That apart, it is incorrect to think that the child cannot produce any evidence. It is true that there is no point in the child entering the witness-box to give evidence even after reaching a certain age. But the child can examine competent witnesses. The burden is on the appellant to prove non-access. There is no burden on the child to prove that the appellant had access to the respondent when the child was begotten. Right or wrong, the finding of the family court was that the appellant had access to the respondent at the relevant time. We have no intention to check the correctness of the said finding as we do not propose to go into the merits of the case. Our point is only that the child is a necessary party to the suit whatever be the quality of evidence which the child may be able to produce. We wish to clarify that the question is not whether the child is able to prove its legitimacy or disprove its illegitimacy. The question is whether the child through its guardian is entitled to be heard on the issue which the family court is called upon to decide. The child is certainly entitled to.

12. Let the child, if it wishes so, establish its paternity and legitimacy by separate suit after attaining majority. This was yet another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. We do not consider it a legal argument. What are the options of the child subsequent to the declaratory decree is not the question under consideration. If the appellant obtains a declaration, the child may have the right to sue to get the decree set aside or the child may sue for declaration of its paternity and legitimacy. The availability of a remedy for the child is no justification to grant a declaration against it behind its back. We refer to two decisions cited by the learned amicus curiae. An argument of almost similar nature was rejected by the Madras High Court holding that the argument was besides the point being considered. The decision is Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur v. Parthasarathi Appa Rao Savai Aswa Rao Bahadur (AIR 1932 Madras 583). We are in agreement with the division bench of the Madras High Court. The apex court holds that both procedural law and substantive law mandate that in the absence of a necessary party, the order passed is a nullity and does not have a binding effect. The decision is Khetrabasi Biswal v. Ajaya Kumar Baral ((2004) 1 SCC 317). No court of law should waste its precious time to grant a decree which is a nullity.

13. We next consider the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the DNA test result cannot be reversed even if the child is a party to the suit. Ext C1 is the DNA profile report signed by the controller, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology, Thiruvananthapuram. The DNA fingerprinting test was directed to be conducted in a suit where the child was not a party. Ext C1 report was filed in such a suit. The child is not bound by Ext C1 report since the test was conducted as directed in an order which was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the child. The child has a right to be heard through its guardian before the court takes a decision whether it should direct to conduct the test. We may in this connection refer to the decision in Sunil Eknath Trambake v. Leelavati Sunil Trambake (AIR 2006 Bombay 140) brought to our notice by the learned amicus curiae. It is held that courts cannot direct DNA or any such test without hearing the person concerned irrespective of the fact whether he is a minor or major. We accept the correct dictum laid down by the Bombay High Court. The same decision holds further that if such person is a minor, he should be heard through the natural guardian. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent being the natural guardian was heard before the DNA fingerprinting test was ordered and that she consented for such a test being conducted. But the respondent was heard in the matter not in the capacity of the guardian of the minor, but in her individual capacity only. It is for the court to decide who should be the guardian of the minor in the suit; whether the respondent or any other person including a court guardian. Ext C1 report is liable to be eschewed while considering whether the declaratory decree sought for by the appellant could be granted. The question of reversal of Ext C1 report does not arise at all.

14. We were surprised to hear the argument on the side of the appellant that dragging the child to the present litigation would only cause mental agony to it. The appellant is a person who is even now adamant that he should get a declaration against the child concerning its legitimacy behind its back. The child's mental agony is not a matter for such a person to worry about. Does he believe that the child will not have any mental agony if the declaration is granted without hearing it ? What we consider is the legal right of the child and not any other matter including mental agony.

15. True, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent did not take a contention that the suit was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party, the child. In this connection we refer to the provisions of law mentioned by the learned amicus curiae and the learned counsel for the respondent. Sec.10 of the Family Courts Act provides, inter alia, that the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to the suits and other civil proceedings before a family court. Rule 50 of the Family Courts (Kerala) Rules, 1989 also provides so. Sec.10 of the Family Courts Act states further that for the purposes of the provisions of CPC, a family court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have all the powers of such court. Order I of CPC is captioned 'Parties to Suits'. Rules 3, 9 and 13 of Order I are the relevant provisions which we should consider besides Sec.99. Rule 3 provides as to who are to be joined as defendants. Rule 9 states that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. Rule 9 states further that the court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. The general rule of procedure in rule 9 is subject to the proviso thereto. The said general rule shall not apply to non-joinder of a necessary party as the proviso provides. That means non-joinder of a necessary party stands on a different footing and is a ground to dismiss a suit. Rule 13 insists on to take all objections on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties at the earliest opportunity and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen. It is also provided therein that any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived. Rule 13 has application only to cases of mere non-joinder or misjoinder of parties. It has no application to a case of non-joinder of a necessary party. We are able to assert so in view of the proviso to rule 9 and the proviso to Sec.99 of CPC. We have already considered the effect of the proviso to rule 9. Sec.99 provides, inter alia, that no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal on account of any misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. The proviso clarifies that nothing in Sec.99 shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party. That means non-joinder of a necessary party by itself is a ground to reverse or substantially vary a decree in appeal. It by itself is a ground to remand a suit, after setting aside the decree, in an appropriate case. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure considered by us do take us to the conclusion that the right of a necessary party to contest the suit does not depend upon the mercy of a contention taken by a defendant that the suit is bad for non-joinder of a necessary party. Whether a person is a necessary party or not is a question of fact depending upon the relief claimed in the suit. But once it is established or the court is satisfied that he is a necessary party to the suit, it becomes a question of law and therefore can be raised for the first time in appeal. The failure of the respondent to take the contention that the child is a necessary party to the suit is of no consequence and relevance.

16. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to Secs 34 and 35 of the Specific Relief Act. Sec.35 states the effect of a declaration, if granted. Sec.34 makes it clear that the grant of declaration is within the discretion of the court. The appellant cannot expect to receive the discretionary relief of declaration without impleading the person against whom the declaration is sought or the person who will be affected by the declaration or the person against whom the declaration is directed. Viewed from that angle too, the appellant is not entitled to a declaratory decree as sought for by him without the child on the array of parties.

17. Should we dismiss the appeal or remand the suit ? That is the next and last question. Had a contention been taken by the respondent on non-joinder of the child and the child was not impleaded despite such a contention being taken, we would have certainly thought of dismissing the appeal. As no such contention is taken by the respondent, we think it proper to give an opportunity to the appellant to implead the child. Even if the appeal is dismissed, the appellant may be entitled to file a fresh suit for declaration making the child a defendant. A remand appears to be the proper course. For, multiplicity of suits can be avoided. However, before taking a decision, we should consider the argument raised in this connection by the le

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

arned counsel for the respondent. 18. The respondent's learned counsel submitted that order XLI rule 23 of CPC would not apply as the dismissal of the suit was not on a preliminary point. That is true, but rule 23A of the same order certainly applies. It provides that where the court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, and the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary, the appellate court shall have the same powers as it has under rule 23. The family court dismissed the suit not on a preliminary point. The words 'the decree is reversed in appeal' appearing in rule 23A are wide enough to include the setting aside of a decree on any ground. We do consider a re-trial absolutely necessary since the trial was held and the evidence including Ext C1 DNA profile report was let in without the child on the array of parties. The child should not be compelled to be bound by the evidence so collected. We have already found that Ext C1 report is not binding on the child. We remand the suit under order XLI rule 23A of CPC directing a retrial. 19. The family court shall hold a trial de novo. Ext C1 cannot be let in evidence at the re-trial except to bind the respondent in relation to the relief of compensation. If any request comes for a DNA fingerprinting test, the trial court shall take a decision only after hearing the child if it has come of the age by now. If not, the child shall be heard through its guardian. The depositions of the witnesses now in the file cannot be used at the retrial for any purpose except under Secs 145, 155, 157 and 159 of the Indian Evidence Act. 20. We acknowledge the services rendered by the learned amicus curiae, Sri.G.Unnikrishnan. 21. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and the decree impugned in the appeal are set aside. The suit is remanded to the trial court for disposal anew after a re-trial. The appellant shall be afforded an opportunity to implead the child. We make no order as to costs in the appeal. The parties shall appear before the family court on 10.08.2018.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

18-03-2020 Dr. Ajay Kumar Versus Indu Bala Mishra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 Syed Rezaul Karim Versus Propeitor, Indu G. P. Gas Servicd/ Distributor & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-01-2020 Indu Bai & Others Versus State of Telangana & Others Supreme Court of India
07-01-2020 Jyoti Agrawal & Another Versus Indu Bai & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
23-12-2019 Indu Narain Versus State Bank of India & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi
12-11-2019 M/s. Indu Projects Limited, rep. by its Chief Operating Officer, B.V. Bhaskar Reddy Versus Telangana Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, rep. by its Chairman, Commissionerate of Industries, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-06-2019 Indu Kaul (Advocate) Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
07-06-2019 Mohan Lal Raina Versus Indu Raina & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
06-05-2019 Indu Devi & Another Versus Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sharma & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-04-2019 Manish Kumar Versus Indu Singhal High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
08-04-2019 S. Indu Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-01-2019 Indu Dharmalingam & Others Versus The State by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2018 Emaar Mgf Land Limited & Another Versus Indu Soni & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-09-2018 Indu Jain & Others Versus State of NCT of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
09-07-2018 S. Indu Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
11-05-2018 Indu Singh & Another Versus Prem Chaudhary & Others High Court of Delhi
26-04-2018 Raj Kumar Versus Indu Rani High Court of Himachal Pradesh
17-04-2018 Seema Navin Jain & Others Versus Indu Rakesh Jain & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-04-2018 Indu Kukreja Versus Deepak Kukreja High Court of Uttarakhand
05-04-2018 The Manager (HRD) Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Company Ltd., Indu Nagar, Ootacamund, The Nilgiris Versus The Regional Labour Commissioner, (Central), The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-06-2017 Indu Chandran & Others Versus Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
06-06-2017 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its General Manager, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Versus Indu Joshi & Others High Court of Rajasthan
10-05-2017 Sushil Kumar Yadav Versus Indu Devi High Court of Jharkhand
09-05-2017 Indu Devi Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2017 Indu Devi Versus The State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
04-04-2017 Indu Devi Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
10-03-2017 Dr. R.N.K. Bhargava Consultant Surgeon & Others Versus Indu Sukeshini & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
21-02-2017 Vasanthakumari & Another Versus Indu Bala Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-11-2016 Indu Solanki Versusstate of Uttar Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
31-10-2016 M/s Indu Nissan Oxo Chem Indus Ltd Versus Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.Tax Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
31-10-2016 M/s Indu Nissan Oxo Chem Indus Ltd Versus Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.Tax Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
18-10-2016 Indu Bala Bansal Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
02-09-2016 The New India Assurance Company Versus Indu Bala & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
04-08-2016 Indu Kumari Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-06-2016 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Indu Bala & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
28-04-2016 Rajesh Kumar Versus Indu Devi High Court of Jharkhand
20-04-2016 Shailesh Mohan Saxena & 3 Others Versus Indu Gupta High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
08-04-2016 Anirudh Mishra Versus Indu Mishra High Court of Delhi
30-03-2016 Dr. S.P.G. Sundaram & Another Versus Indu Vedamurthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-03-2016 P. Indu Versus The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-02-2016 Indu Sethia Versus The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2016 Mahershi Dayanand Saraswati Versus Labour Court cum Indu & Others High Court of Rajasthan
08-01-2016 Indu Bala Versus Vipin Sharma High Court of Punjab and Haryana
23-12-2015 Indu G.N. Rane, Principal, People's Higher Secondary School (Government Aided School) Versus The Director of Education, Government of Goa & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
01-09-2015 Indu Dalmia & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Police Alipiri, Through its Public Prosecutor & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
22-04-2015 Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Sharma Versus Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-03-2015 Indu Srivastava Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-12-2014 Smt Indu Anand Versus Rattan Furniture Stores & Others High Court of Delhi
07-11-2014 Rajeev Maheshwari & Others Versus Indu Kochar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-07-2014 Indu Bala Tyagi Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-05-2014 Indu Khanna Versus Punjab National Bank & Another Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
17-04-2014 Indu Sahu & Others Versus Kiran Marathi & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-03-2014 Rajinder Singh Versus Indu Rattan & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
05-03-2014 C. Premraj Versus M/s. Indu Eastern Province Projects Private Ltd., (SPV of Embassy Unity Consortium) & Another Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
04-03-2014 Indu Khanna Versus Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Army Headquarters, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
26-02-2014 Manish Kumar Versus Indu Singhal High Court of Rajasthan
28-01-2014 Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Indu Nissan Oxo Chemical Industries Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
16-01-2014 Indu Chawla & Another Versus Bharat Chawala & Others High Court of Delhi
20-12-2013 Lekh Ram & Others Versus Indu Bhardwaj & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
21-11-2013 M/s. Indu Projects Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
18-11-2013 Indu Projects Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
13-11-2013 Indu Bhushan Versus State of J&K & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
01-11-2013 Indu Projects Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
09-10-2013 Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Another Versus Indu Dhir National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-09-2013 Indu Gupta & Others Versus Financial Commissioner Appeals, Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-07-2013 Indu Nissan Oxo Chemical Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
08-07-2013 Mrs. Indu Joshi Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another High Court of Uttarakhand
14-05-2013 Indu Kushwah Versus Manoj Singh Kushwah High Court of Madhya Pradesh
01-05-2013 Indu Bala Satija Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority Through its Chief Administrator National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-04-2013 Mrs. Indu Behera Versus State of Orissa, represented through its Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department & Others High Court of Orissa
05-04-2013 Indu Munshi & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
19-03-2013 Indu Ramchandra Khanvilkar Versus Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-01-2013 Indu Devi Versus M/s. Agarwal Saree Center rep. by Parter Suryaprakash Mangal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-12-2012 Kishan Mimani & Others Versus Smt. Indu Kocher & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-11-2012 R. Indu Versus The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, rep. by its Registrar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2012 Indu Versus Narsingh Das & Others High Court of Rajasthan
18-07-2012 Mrs. Indu Kalra & Another Versus M/s Orphic Resorts Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-05-2012 Dr. Indu Sharma Versus Gurvindr Singh Zee Study Point School National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-05-2012 Dr. Indu Sharma Versus Gurvindr Singh Zee Study Point School National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-04-2012 Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, anusandhan Bhawan & Another Versus Indu Bala Yadav widow of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Yadav Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
13-03-2012 Rajeev Maheswari & Others Indu Kocher & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-12-2011 Kishan Mimani & Another Versus Indu Kocher High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
16-12-2011 Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Sharma Versus Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-10-2011 Indu Nissan Oxo Chemical Industries Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
15-07-2011 M. Santhanaraj Versus Thoothukudi Vadathisai Indu Nadar Mahimai Dharmakarapettai Paribalana Sabai, Through its Secretary Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-07-2011 Indu B. Srivastava, Bangalore Versus Avani Kumar Varma & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-06-2011 Indu Nissan Oxo Chemical Company Ltd. Versus The Adjudicating Officer Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
23-05-2011 Hemant Purohit Versus Indu Bala & Another High Court of Rajasthan
18-05-2011 Indu Singh Versus UOI & Others High Court of Delhi
11-05-2011 Haryana Urban Development Authority Through its Chief Administrator & Others Versus Smt. Indu Ahuja National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-05-2011 Mool Chand Mundhra Versus Indu Bala High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-05-2011 Rajeev Maheshwari & Others Versus Indu Kocher And Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-04-2011 Shiv Prakash Shah Versus Indu Shah High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-03-2011 T.K. Indu, H.S.S.T.(Zoology) Versus M. Sharafudeen, H.S.S.T.(Junior) & Others High Court of Kerala
08-03-2011 Indu Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-03-2011 Indu Dogra Versus State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
24-02-2011 Indu Lata Aggarwal & Another Versus Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Patiala Division, Patiala & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-02-2011 Sudhir Kumar Rehani Versus Indu Bala & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
05-01-2011 Surjit Singh Versus Indu High Court of Himachal Pradesh
30-11-2010 Citi Bank Na Versus Indu Kaul Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi