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



Poonam Chand Kasliwal v/s Jaipur Development Authority & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- S CHAND AND COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L22219DL1970PLC005400

Company & Directors' Information:- S CHAND AND COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22219DL1970PLC005400

Company & Directors' Information:- JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. [Amalgamated] CIN = U45209RJ1942PLC000129

Company & Directors' Information:- DEVELOPMENT CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U13209WB1939PTC009750

Company & Directors' Information:- POONAM AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1975PTC007851

    Civil Writ Petition No. 677 of 1986

    Decided On, 14 September 1998

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.C. VERMA

    For the Appellant: S. Kasliwal, A. Kama, Advocates. For the Respondents: J.S. Rastogi, R.D. Rastogi, S.C. Mittal, Advocates.



Judgment Text

J.C. Verma, J.

1. The land possessed by the father of the petitioner Jagannath as owner measuring 2053 sq. yds. of having been acquired in the year 1934 by the then Jaipur State was ultimately compensated by way of allotment of three plots numbering A-19, B-37, B-38 to the petitioner in Janta Colony Scheme measuring 133 sq. yds. vide allotment order dated 2-4-1977. Even though before having been allotted the plots in Janta Colony Scheme, the petitioner had to suffer many other allotments in lieu of his acquiring of his original land and repeated cancellations and reallotments. There is no dispute that the petitioner was the owner of the plot having been given to him by the erstwhile Jaipur State in the year 1927. This land was acquired by the State in the year 1934 and he was allotted alternative land after about 28 years on 15-11-1961 measuring 1333.3 sq. yds., as comprising of plot No. A-53 Moti Doongri Scheme. This Mod Doongri Scheme allotment was also cancelled for apparently no reasons on 5-3-1977 by the Jaipur Development Authority and the matter having been represented by the petitioner, he was once again compensated and was granted the allotment by way of compensation of the land acquired as stated above in the plots in Janta Colony Scheme as mentioned above. Possession of these plots were handed over on 2-4-1977.

2. Janta Colony Scheme was an approved and planned scheme by the UIT wherein number of plots were carved and the above said three plots were the approved plots of the scheme. The petitioner in order to construct on the plots had submitted the maps/plans to the authorities which were approved on 16-1-1980 vide Annexure-14. It is stated that within one month of the approval the petitioner started the construction on the said plot. Adjoining to the plots as per the map attached Annexures-8, 15, 16 and 17, there is a land of a Government Mental Hospital. The Management of the Government Mental Hospital started disputing the possession of the plot allotted to the petitioner in Janta Colony Scheme with the result that the petitioner had to file an injunction suit in the Civil Court and initially obtained a status quo order restraining the Mental Hospital to interfere in his possession. However, because of the reason that the interim status quo order was vacated later on, the petitioner did not pursue with the remedies of civil suit of injunction as stated by counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 25-10-1985, copy of which is attached as Annexure-18 to the writ petition when the Jaipur Development Authority (for short JDA) had informed the-petitioner to the effect that the maps/ plans of construction as approved by the JDA on 16-1-1981 for constructing on Plot No. A-19, B-37 and B-38 in the Janta Colony, but on the information received from the management of the Mental Hospital, Jaipur, it has been found that the said plots are alleged to be in possession of the Mental Hospital and, therefore, the petitioner was told that the maps sanctioned for the construction of the plots are likely to be cancelled. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation. Vide Annexure-19 dated 22-1-1986 the maps sanctioned were cancelled. The only ground for cancelling the maps was that the land in question is said to be in possession of the Mental Hospital as claimed by the Hospital. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order Annexure-19 and the show cause notice Annexure-18 and has prayed that both the orders be quashed.

4. Written statement on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has been filed. It is alleged that earlier plots allotted in Moti Doongri Scheme or anywhere else seem to be a manipulation. It is further submitted that in the map prepared by the UIT, the plot Nos. A-19, B-37 and B-38 of Janta Colony Scheme have wrongly been shown in the scheme whereas it should have been shown as a property of Mental Hospital. It is stated that the property in question belongs to the Mental Hospital for being in occupation of the same and the petitioner in connivance with the UIT or its subordinate staff has manipulated to get the most precious land of Mental Hospital of the main road of Jaipur. It is stated that earlier the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction, He was able to obtain an interim injunction which was vacated and even appeal filed against the interim order was also dismissed on 21-1-1984 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. It is admitted that Janta Colony Scheme was approved by the State Government but in the scheme the area has been wrongly marked as plots.

5. A separate written statement had been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. It is admitted that the plot Nos. A-19, B-37 and B-38 in Janta Colony Scheme were allotted to the petitioner in the month of March, 1977. It is also admitted that the plans were approved by the authorities for constructing the house. However, it is stated that for the reasons that the mental hospital was in possession of the land in question, therefore, the impugned order Annexure-19 was passed and for the reason that the question of possession was a disputed question of fact, the petitioner had earlier movFed a civil suit. It is stated that the JDA had ample powers to pass an order u/s 30 of the JDA Act and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the authorities.

6. From the pleadings and admitted facts of the parties and Annexures attached with the writ petition and the written statements, the following facts are virtually not disputed and stands admitted.

(1) Annexure-1 is a document showing ownership of certain land as given to the father of the petitioner in the year 1927.

(2) Annexure-3 a letter dated 27-11-1949 wherein Jagannath had been informed that the State desires to acquire his land and, therefore, he was given an option to select any of the first class plots from the plots mentioned in the letter.

(3) Annexure-4 is a letter of allotment of plot No. A-53 situated in Moti Doongri Scheme. The letter had been issued by the UIT. The area has also been mentioned as 1333.3 Sq. yds. vide Annexure-5 in November, 1961. The area of the plot was demarcated in Moti Doongri Scheme and the petitioner was directed to take the possession of the same. The petitioner had also been asked to start construction in the Moti Doongri Scheme. As per Annexure- 6 another decision was taken for allotting alternative plot to the petitioner in place of earlier plot. To similar respect is the letter Annexure- 9 of allotment of the plots in question to the petitioner by the UIT Jaipur on 5-3-1977 and the possession had also been delivered.

(4) Annexure-14 is the order approving the construction plans.

(5) Maps have been attached with the writ petition and also with the written statement to show that in the scheme framed by the UIT, these three plots have been shown in the plan map of approved Janta Colony Scheme.

7. From the above facts, it is very clear that the petitioner had been compensated in lieu of plots owned by him which were acquired by the State. The plots are situated in the planned scheme and are earmarked, as such maps have been approved. Even though this Court is not to decide the question of title in between the parties, if the title is disputed, but in the present case so far the title of the petitioner is concerned, that stands established by way of allotment letter issued to the petitioner which had been placed on record as Annexures and the possession of the same had also been given for which approval for construction was also accorded by way of sanctioning of the maps vide Annexure-14. From the above, it is very clear that the petitioner had a complete title on the property in question. The maps have also been seen by me. There is a building of Mental Hospital and then in front of the building there is a 100 ft. wide road and on the other side of the road there are servant quarters of the Mental Hospital and adjoining the servant quarters towards West there are the plots carved i.e. Plot Nos. A-19 and B-37 to B-56. There is a small approach road towards South of the servant quarters of the aforesaid plots and again there are servant quarters and the carved plots by the UIT towards the West of the servant quarters. The plots A-11 and A-19 and B-36 to B-56 are symmetrically in one line. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that as a matter of fact because of the reason that the Mental Hospital had started fencing wire towards the East of the plot in question and, therefore, the Mental Hospital was entitled to retain the possession. It goes without saying that nothing has been brought on record here even in this Court to show about the ownership or showing any paper of title of me Mental Hospital in regard to plots in question nor any map showing the demarcation of the area at the initial allotment of Mental Hospital has been placed on record. But because of the reason that if the question of possession or title was being disputed by the Mental Hospital management and on being threatened by the UIT for allotment of the said plots to the petitioner, the Mental Hospital ought to have resorted to establish its title in the appropriate forum which has not been done by it. The petitioner admittedly having been allotted the plots which plots are developed plots in the Moti Doongri Scheme of UIT and have been allotted in lieu and as a compensation by the earlier plots acquired by the State, the petitioner does have a right to safeguard his interest in the property.

8. The authorities had rightly passed and sanctioned the maps. After having so sanctioned, only because of the reasons that some thir

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d party claims the possession of the property in dispute which property belongs to the UIT or JDA, the authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel the maps on the so-called alleged possession of Mental Hospital. From the record, title of the petitioner was not disputed and once the UIT or the JDA allots the plot to a allottee, a title is conferred on such allottee which title cannot be taken away only because of the reason that some other person claims possession of the land. However, in the present case title or allotment of the plots still with the petitioner which is admitted fact. There was no justification for the respondent-authorities to have cancelled the sanction of the plots on the reasons given in Annexure-19. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is to be allowed and show cause notice Annexure-18 and Annexure-19 impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost of Rs. 2,000/- which shall be borne by the JDA who had passed the orders Annexures-18 and 19. The writ petition is allowed as aforesaid.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

04-08-2020 Santosh Kumar Garg (Deceased) Versus U.P. Housing & Development Board, U.P. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Prem Chand Versus State of Haryana Supreme Court of India
30-07-2020 Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana & Another Versus Jaswant Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Amar Chand Singh Versus C.B.I. Thru. Director, New Delhi & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-07-2020 Vishnu Priya & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, SC/ST Development Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-07-2020 P. Prabhavathi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-07-2020 The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India Versus Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Others Supreme Court of India
09-07-2020 Khem Raj Verma & Others Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
07-07-2020 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bengaluru & Another Versus Byamma & Others High Court of Karnataka
07-07-2020 Dr. Y. Kedareswari Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Social Welfare (SC Development) Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-07-2020 M/s. Psa Impex Pvt Ltd Versus Graeater Noida Industrial Development & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-06-2020 Firm: Narmada Prasad Rajesh Kumar, Bilaspur Versus Firm: Kailash Chand Ramesh Kumar Chandrapur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-06-2020 Barak Valley Hills Tribes Development Council, Assam Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
23-06-2020 P.S. Srinivas Rao Versus 60th Padubidri Grama Panchayath, Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 Swetha Shri Selvakumar Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-06-2020 N. Krishnamoorthy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-06-2020 Siri Chand (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Versus Surinder Singh Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Awadhesh Kumar Versus Multi State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
12-06-2020 Dr. D. Euvalingam & Others Versus The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-06-2020 Ashok Kumar & Others Versus Ramesh Chand & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
05-06-2020 Subhash Chand Garg & Others Versus M/S H.K.S. Developers Private Ltd & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
02-06-2020 C. Sasiyendran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-06-2020 Nagen Chandra Das & Others Versus The State of Assam, Rep. by the Comm. And Secy., Deptt. of Urban Development Deptt., Dispur & Others High Court of Gauhati
01-06-2020 K. Shanthi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Padmavani Educational & Charitable Trust, Rep.by its Joint Managing Trustee, Salem Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 M/s SGS Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Bihar Urban Development Agency BUDA, Patna & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
29-05-2020 N. Vijayakumary Versus The Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited, Registered Office Thrissur, Represented By Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 Gaddam Koteswaramma Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Ravipati Nagasarala & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 V. Srinivas Chowdary & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-05-2020 Hukum Chand Deswal Versus Satish Raj Deswal Supreme Court of India
05-05-2020 Prabhu & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Housing & Urban Development, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
01-05-2020 Bank of Baroda Erstwhile Dena Bank Versus Suresh Chand Seth & Others High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Delhi Development Authority & Others Versus Pushpa Lata & Others High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Romesh Kumar Bajaj Versus Delhi Development Authority High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Gopi Chand Versus Geeta Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 P. Damodhar Versus The Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited rep by its Joint Managing Director, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-04-2020 South Durban Community Environmental Alliance Versus MEC For Economic Development, Tourism And Environmental Affairs Kwazulu-Natal Provincial Government & Another Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
08-04-2020 Civilian Welfare & Development Trust (Regd.) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
04-04-2020 ABC Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 M/s. Rite Choice Foundations and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, C.K. Sridhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 Bengaluru Development Authority V/S Sudhakar Hegde & Others Supreme Court of India
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
12-03-2020 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
11-03-2020 S.S. Sundaresan Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-03-2020 Jerome Velho Versus State of Goa, through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
10-03-2020 V.S. Senthil Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Om Prakash Swami Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 Poonam Devi & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 V. Gurusamy Versus The Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-03-2020 Choda Bhutia & Others Versus State of Sikkim, Through the Secretary, Human Resources & Development Department Government of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
04-03-2020 Ravindra Manik Shinde & Another Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Madhya Pradesh Housing & Infrastructure Development Board & Another Versus Vijay Bodana & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Shri Chand Construction & Apartments Private Limited & Another Versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. High Court of Delhi
04-03-2020 R. Praveen Versus The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 State of West Bengal Versus PAM Development Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-03-2020 Abdul Salam & Others Versus Delhi Development Authority & Another High Court of Delhi
03-03-2020 Diwan Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
03-03-2020 MCD V/S Ramesh Chand High Court of Delhi
03-03-2020 Uday Prakash Mishra Versus Poonam Mishra & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
02-03-2020 Birru Prathap Reddy & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
27-02-2020 Mann Housing Development & Others V/S Paarijat Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-02-2020 Burdwan Development Authority & Others Versus Arifa Khatun & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-02-2020 Anil Dattatraya Girme & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Ministry of Urban Development, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-02-2020 The Administrator, City and Industrial Development Corporation [CIDCO] & Others Versus Padmakar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-02-2020 M.P. Road Development Corporation Versus Jagannath & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
25-02-2020 R. Thenmozhi Versus The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing & Urban Development, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2020 Vuchi Bhuvaneswari Prasad Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration & Urban Development & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-02-2020 Suresh Chand & Another Versus Suresh Chander (D) Thr LRs. & Others Supreme Court of India
19-02-2020 Rajendra K. Bhutta Versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Another Supreme Court of India
19-02-2020 Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., R/by the Deputy Manager (Legal), Ernakulam Branch Versus R. Ranjith Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
18-02-2020 Banajit Deka Versus The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
18-02-2020 A. Ramesh, Trustee, Okkiam Thoraipakkam Vanniyakula Ksathriyar Welfare Temple Development Trust, Okkiam Thuraipakkam Village, Chennai Versus The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Kancheepuram & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Gram Panchayat Zinc Smelter, Panchayat Samiti Kurabad, District Udaipur Through Its Sarpanch Sarika Versus State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
17-02-2020 Ashok Chand Kothari Versus Alpna & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
13-02-2020 S. Sattanathan V/S State of Tamil Nadu, Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Narasimhan I.A.S. Educational & Charitable Trust, Rep. By its Managing Trustee N. Ranjit Versus The Member Secretary,Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 Umesh Chand Sharma & Others Versus Parsvnath Developers Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-02-2020 K. Devadass Versus State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Secretary to Government Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department Secretariat Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-02-2020 G. Thamaraiselvi Versus Secretary To Government, Union of India, (Department of Higher Education), Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-02-2020 Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd., Kolkata Versus Smita Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-02-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus C.R. Sons Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
10-02-2020 M/s. Pacific Development Corporation Ltd. V/S South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
10-02-2020 Muthoot Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Senior Manager (Business Development), Mumbai V/S State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Subramani Versus The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Prem Chand Singh Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory V/S Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12 New Delhi High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 K.M. Thamizharasu Versus The Commissioner of Rural Development Panagal Buildings Saidapet, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Kajal V/S Jagdish Chand and Others. Supreme Court of India
04-02-2020 Vythiri Primary Co-operative Agricultural & Rural-Development Bank Ltd., Kalpetta P.O, Wayanad Versus T.V. Devasia Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram