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



Praveen Kumar Prakash & Others v/s The State of Jharkhand & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- PRAVEEN INDIA LTD . [Active] CIN = L21029WB1983PLC036326

Company & Directors' Information:- PRAVEEN & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1999PTC098397

Company & Directors' Information:- S PRAKASH AND COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1938PTC002840

    M.A. No. 980 of 2019 in C.A. No. 6312 of 2014

    Decided On, 17 October 2019

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

    For the Appearing Parties: K.M. Natraj, ASG, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate, Anmol Chandan, Sharath Nambiar, Ms. Swati Ghildyal, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Sudhir Nandarajog, Abhay Kumar, Pankaj Jaiswal, Nimeet Kumar Singh, Saurabh Mishra, Milin Shivpuri, Venkita Subramoniam T.R, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Aditya N. Das, Aditya Pratap Singh, Himanshu Shekhar, Jamnesh Kumar, Parth Shekhar, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Ashmita Bisarya, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Deepak Gupta, J.

This application is for recall of order dated 05.08.2019 wherein in respect of Case No. 10/2011 relating to the 1st Combined Civil Services Examination conducted by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), the following observation has been made:

"Two cases being, Case Nos. 23 of 2010 and 10 of 2011, relating to 2nd Combined Civil Services Examination and 1st Combined Civil Services Examination respectively are stated to be still under investigation."

2. The applicants who seek recall of this order are the candidates who were successful in the 1st Combined Civil Services Examination. The short background of the case is that the JPSC conducted the 1st Combined Civil Services Examination pursuant to advertisement issued in the year 2002-03. The applicants before us were successful in the said examination and appointed by JPSC in the month of July, 2006. It appears that no challenge was made to their selection at that stage. In the meanwhile, the 2nd Combined Civil Services Examination was also conduced by the JPSC and the successful candidates joined in the year 2008. A challenge was made to the second selection process whereby the candidates were selected for the second examination and it was alleged that there were large scale mal-practices in selection of those involved in the second process and accordingly Vigilance Case No. 23/2010 was registered. Thereafter, a PIL (bearing WP (PIL) No. 3594/2011) was filed by one Shri Budh Deo Oraon. In this PIL, the candidates who were selected in the first selection were not made parties. However, the allegations were made that the first selection was also tainted and therefore the CBI should investigate in respect of both the selections. Pursuant thereto, the FIR was registered even with regard to first selection on 26.04.2011 as Case Crime No. 10/2011 on 14.06.2012.

3. It appears that in the meantime the State had terminated the services of 19 selected candidates from the second examination. The affected candidates moved the High Court and the High Court set aside the order of the State on 28.06.2011. This order of the Single Judge was challenged in LPA No. 254/2011. The LPA and PIL were heard together. In this LPA, on 14.06.2012, an order was passed that both the FIRs be investigated by the CBI. It was further directed that monitoring would be done by the High Court and stay was granted for re-instatement of those 19 candidates whose termination had been set aside by the Single Judge. The High Court not only set aside the order of the Single Judge with regard to re-instatement of 19 candidates but went on to hold that all the candidates in 2nd Combined Civil Services Examination selected pursuant to Advertisement No. 7 of 2005 would not be allowed to work and draw their salary till further orders of the High Court. This order was challenged before this Court.

4. The special leave petition filed by the parties was disposed of vide judgment dated 11.07.2014 which order was finally corrected on 27.01.2017. The relevant portion of the order, as corrected, reads as follows:

"Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we direct that the said paragraph should be read as follows:- In pursuance of the aforesaid order certain employees had been employed and are working presently. The Division Bench of the High Court wherein direction has been given for CBI investigation is monitoring the same. The High Court may do needful in the matter as per law and we are only inclined to set aside the direction pertaining to monitoring of investigation by the High Court. Regard being had to the interim order passed we are inclined to direct that the direction passed by the Division Bench to the effect that the candidates selected in 2nd Combined Civil Services Examination held pursuant to Advertisement No. 07 of 2005 would not be allowed to work and draw their salary till further orders of the High Court is set aside. However, we may hasten to add that the persons who are working presently shall continue till the High Court finally decides the lis. Needless to emphasize, while deciding the controversy the High Court shall be guided by the decisions of this Court and the concept of service jurisprudence."

5. The effect of the order of this Court is that this Court set aside the direction pertaining to monitoring of investigation by the High Court. It confirmed the order of the High Court in so far as the investigation into both these examinations was to be conducted by the CBI. This Court further directed that the candidates selected pursuant to the 2nd Combined Civil Services Examination be allowed to work. This Court made it clear that this would be subject to the final decision in the lis between the parties.

6. The PIL petitioner filed MA No. 980 of 2019 in this Court which came up before this Court on 22.07.2019. The grievance of the PIL petitioner was that despite 2 years having been lapsed, the CBI had not completed investigation. This Court passed the following order:

"Notice be served on the C.B.I. through the Central Agency, returnable within two weeks.

C.B.I. to submit a report on the status of the investigation."

7. On the next date, the matter was listed before this Bench when a status report was filed by the CBI and we passed a detailed order with regard to 12 cases but we are mainly concerned with the following portion of the order which reads thus:

"Learned counsel for the C.B.I. states that delay has occurred because re-evaluation of the answer scripts to be carried out. He prays for direction in this regard.

We permit the C.B.I. to get the answer scripts reevaluated and grant four months time to do the needful."

8. The main grievance by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of some of the selected candidates of the 1st Combined Civil Services Examination is that this order was obtained by withholding certain facts from this Court and he has specifically made reference to the order of the High Court dated 07.03.2014, which according to him only allowed the CBI to again approach the Magistrate for getting the answer scripts of the selected candidates re-evaluated. His argument is that this order was not brought to the notice of this Court. If that order had been brought to the notice of this Court, this Court may not have passed the directions in the manner in which they passed. He also contends that the CBI was bound to approach the Trial Court for obtaining necessary directions in this behalf. His final submission is that the selected candidates not being parties to these cases, such orders could not have been passed.

9. As far as the last objection is concerned, we find no merit in the same because according to us a person who is an accused has no business in challenging the manner of investigation unless it invades his personal liberties or rights.

10. We, however, do feel that it would have been better if the PIL petitioner or CBI had brought the order dated 07.03.2014 to the notice of this Court. Having held so, we do not feel that our order is such that it runs counter to the order of the High Court dated 07.03.2014.

11. The background of the order of 07.03.2014 is that the CBI filed an application before the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi praying that the answer scripts of the selected candidates be got reevaluated from the JPSC. It appears that this application was allowed by the Special Judge. The answer scripts in some subjects were re-evaluated by JPSC but thereafter JPSC stopped re-evaluating the same and approached the High Court challenging the order of the Special Judge dated 23.04.2013 permitting such re-evaluation by the JPSC on the ground that the rules did not allow re-evaluation of the answer scripts by JPSC.

12. The High Court held that though the CBI had the power to investigate the matter in the manner which it felt like but in view of the regulations pertaining to the Public Service Commission, which do not permit re-evaluation of the answer scripts, such direction for re-evaluation could not have been given by the Special Judge.

13. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel has made specific reference to certain observations of the High Court which read as follows:

"I may agree to the proposition that the prosecuting agency may not have any bar or barrier to go for reevaluation. It is well within the power of the investigating agency to find out the culpability of the accused persons to go even for reevaluation, though under regulation it is bar but any order passed by the court either in civil proceeding or in criminal proceeding would not be permissible, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case referred to above though it was never related to criminal proceeding.

Since I have already held that it was not permissible on the part of the court to pass such order directing the Chairman, JPSC to reevaluate the answer sheets, it would not be necessary for me to go to other aspect of the matter as to whether the order passed by the Special Judge amounts to interference or not. Nevertheless, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Sakiri Vasu (supra), wherein Their Lordships have observed that the Magistrate does have enough power to pass such order which appears to be just and proper for investigation and that if it appears to the court that the proper investigation has not been made, he can pass such order.

There has been no dispute to the proposition that the Magistrate if feels that the investigation has not been made properly, he may pass such order which he deems fit and proper so that proper investigation be made."

14. The contention is that these observations of the High Court clearly indicate that the CBI should again approach the Magistrate for directions to get the answer scripts re-evaluated. We are not in agreement with this submission because in the final direction, the High Court held as follows:

"Here the situation appears to be something different. There has been no dispute over the power of the CBI that for coming to just and logical conclusion it can go for evaluation but such order passed by the court directing the Chairman, JPSC to get the answer book evaluated can be said to be against the guidelines issued by the JPSC. Under the circumstances, the court by passing such order has committed illegality and thereby the order dated 23.04.2013 certainly suffers from illegality."

15. We are of the view that the manner in which investigation is to be carried out must be decided by the Investigating Agency. Further it is for the Magistrate exercising power under Section 156, Cr PC to see whether the investigation is properly conducted or not. It is for the Investigating Agency to investigate a crime in the manner which it feels is the best. It can approach the Magistrate for assistance or specific orders when there is something beyond the scope of investigating agency for which orders of the Magistrate are required but the investigating agency can carry out the investigation, without orders of the Magistrate. It is not necessary that for every facet of investigation, orders from the Magistrate are required. That is not the purpose of the Cr PC.

16. In the status report filed in a sealed cover, the CBI had made following observations (since this observation has no secrecy involved in it, we are quoting this portion of the report):-

"The field investigation in this case is almost complete. Re-evaluation of answer sheets of all successful candidates by independent panel of examiners remains to be done and thereafter decision would be taken with regard to filing of the charge-sheet."

17. As already observed by us, it would have been better that the CBI or the PIL petitioner had broug

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ht to our notice. Having held so, we feel that the CBI in its report did not ask for a direction of re-evaluation but was only asking for time to complete the reevaluation process. We would like to clarify that our order should not be read as a direction to the CBI to conduct re-evaluation but only to be read as extending time to complete the investigation including re-evaluation of the answer scripts. 18. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel has raised doubts with regard to the veracity of investigation process of the answer scripts. It is for the trial Court to decide whether re-evaluation is proper or improper. It is for the trial Court to decide what is the evidentiary value of such re-evaluation. We make it clear that the trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations in the previous orders of this Court where we have extended time permitting the CBI to carry out re-evaluation process. Needless to say that during the course of trial or at the time of framing of charges, it is open to the applicants before us to raise all grounds available to them. Our observations should not be read to mean that we have given our approval to the re-evaluation process. 19. The Miscellaneous application stands disposed of in view of the fact that this Court is not monitoring the investigation.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

20-10-2020 M/s Sahara India Thru. Partner Om Prakash Srivastava & Another Versus U.O.I. Thru Secy. Ministry Of Labour, New Delhi & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
14-10-2020 Mamta Prakash Versus M/s. Anant Homes Pvt. Ltd., District-Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
05-10-2020 Mohd. Sher Nabi Chaman Versus Udit Prakash Rai & Another High Court of Delhi
29-09-2020 Chandra Prakash Tripathi Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-09-2020 Mahasamy Versus Minor Prakash, Rep. By his father & natural guardian Rajendran, Tiruppur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Through Manager, Rajasthan Versus Ram Prakash Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-08-2020 Prakash Chandra Versus Ritesh Bhargawa High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-08-2020 Prakash Chandra Versus Ritesh Bhargawa High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-08-2020 Jai Prakash Mishra Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-08-2020 Divya Aashirwad Properties Private Limited, Haryana Versus Prakash Chand Chajard National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-07-2020 Ved Prakash Goel @ Ved Goel & Another Versus S.D. Singh & Another Supreme Court of India
24-07-2020 A. Praveen Kumar Versus The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Egmore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-07-2020 A.N. Prakash Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 M/s. Durga Fabrication Works, Represented by its Proprietor, Prakash Ramu Rathod Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2020 Mohd. Quasim Versus P. Vijay Prakash High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-06-2020 Sat Prakash Soni Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
26-06-2020 For the Respondents: Vibhav Prakash Tripathi, Advocate. For the Respondents: G.A., Subhash Chandra Yadav, Advocate. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-06-2020 Prakash Agrawal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
23-06-2020 Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Instittue & Research Centre Through Administrator/Secretary & Others Versus Dharam Prakash Garg Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
15-06-2020 State of Telangana Versus Polepaka Praveen @ Pawan Supreme Court of India
15-06-2020 Rajeev Kumar Singh Versus Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Prakash Industries Limited. Versus Bengal Energy Limited. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-06-2020 Dharmesh Vasantrai Shah Versus Renuka Prakash Tiwari High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-06-2020 Geeta Devi Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
05-06-2020 Afroz Khan @ Prakash & Another Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by The High Court Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
02-06-2020 Kanakkan @ Prakash Versus State Represented by Dharmapuri High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Sat Prakash Soni @ Sonu Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 M/s. Pt. Ved Prakash Beverages Versus Crystal Beverages High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 K. Kavya Prakash Versus V.J. Sujith High Court of Kerala
05-05-2020 Jagat Prakash Nadda Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
30-04-2020 Pawan Prakash Pathak & Another Versus Bar Council of India & Others Supreme Court of India
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State of GNCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
27-04-2020 Om Prakash & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
07-04-2020 H.M. Prakash Versus The State of Co-operative Election Authority, Represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
06-04-2020 N. Prakash Versus State of Kerala, Represented by its Secretary to Government of Kerala, Department of Home, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
19-03-2020 Shyam Sahni Versus Arjun Prakash & Others Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Praveen Kumar Versus M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 Prem Prakash Subodh & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-03-2020 Om Prakash Swami Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-03-2020 R. Praveen Versus The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Palanivel @ Prakash Versus State Rep.by Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Uday Prakash Mishra Versus Poonam Mishra & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
29-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Khariwal Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
26-02-2020 St.Paul's Seminary, Represented by its Procurator, Tiruchirapalli Versus John Prakash Ebinesan & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-02-2020 M.P. Vijayakumar Versus G.B. Prakash High Court of Karnataka
24-02-2020 In The Matter of Anubhav Anilkumar Agarwal Versus Om Prakash Rohra & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
19-02-2020 Jatinder Chhabra Versus Daya Prakash Gupta (Deceased) Thr Lrs High Court of Delhi
18-02-2020 Nisha Praveen Patil Versus Praveen Manohar Patil High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
17-02-2020 Vijay Prakash Mishra Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
17-02-2020 Ram Prakash Sharma Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-02-2020 Vishal Versus Prakash Kadappa Hegannawar High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
13-02-2020 Om Prakash Shrivastava Versus General Administration Department & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
12-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Lucknow, U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Ajay Kumar Versus Om Prakash & Another High Court of Delhi
11-02-2020 State of Rajasthan Versus Prakash High Court of Rajasthan
11-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Chaudhary & Others Versus Election Commission of India & Others High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 M/s. Drizzle, Represented by its Proprietor S. Prakash V/s The Commissioner Prohibition and Excise Chepauk, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 Om Prakash Versus The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Indore Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
04-02-2020 Praveen, Proprietor Versus Sumesh, KaleeckalVeedu, KrishnapuramMuri, Krishnapuram & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
03-02-2020 Jay Prakash Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan
30-01-2020 Praveen & Another Versus Baby Ulhahnan & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-01-2020 Om Prakash Versus Suresh Kumar Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Saparna Prakash & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 Pradeep Kumar & Others Versus E.K. Prakash, Special Secretary to Govertnment, Finance Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
27-01-2020 Pankaj Kumar Versus Praveen Jain High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
23-01-2020 Ved Prakash (Authorized Representative) M/s Karmic Energy Private Limited Versus P. Ponram, Managing Partner, M/s Unicon Engineers High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 Kurama Anand Prakash Versus The State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-01-2020 P.V. Philip Versus Praveen & Another High Court of Kerala
14-01-2020 M/s. Malabar Agro Industry, Represented by Its Proprietor Prakash, Kozhikode Versus State of Kerala Represented by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
14-01-2020 Rajesh Prakash Timblo & Others Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
13-01-2020 Prakash Shikshan Mandal's Loknete Versus State of Maharashtra, through its Department of Medical Education & Drugs & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-01-2020 Prakash Chandra Jain Versus Director, Danish Grih Nir Sanstha MYDT Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
10-01-2020 For the Petitioner: Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ajith Murali, PP., R1, Sree Prakash K. Nair, Advocate. High Court of Kerala
10-01-2020 The Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad Tandur Branch, R.R. District & Others Versus G. Prakash Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
08-01-2020 Praveen Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
07-01-2020 Jai Prakash & Others Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
06-01-2020 Ram Prakash & Others Versus Raj Kumar High Court of Delhi
19-12-2019 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC) Arumbakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai Versus M/s. Spectrum Decors (Chennai) Private Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director R. Jyothi Prakash High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 Ambika Jain & Others Versus Ram Prakash Sharma & Others High Court of Delhi
17-12-2019 M/s. D.R. Raanka Bros., Chennai Versus Om Prakash, Villupuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-12-2019 Prakash Philipose Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
12-12-2019 Mahanagar Gas Ltd. Versus Prakash Nanji Vora National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-12-2019 Anusaya & Another Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., through its Chairman cum managing Director, Prakash Garh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
10-12-2019 Shalimar Iron and Steel Private Limited, Ramgarh Cantt. through its Director Rafat Praveen Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
09-12-2019 Surya Prakash & Another Versus Renuka Devi & Another High Court of Karnataka
09-12-2019 Prakash Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
09-12-2019 Ved Prakash Versus Rajneesh Kumar & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
07-12-2019 Om Prakash Kapoor @ O.P. Kapoor Versus State Thru. Cbi, Bs & Fc, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
05-12-2019 Chet Ram Sanjay Kumar Versus Rajender Prakash Gupta High Court of Delhi
21-11-2019 Sham Lal Chabba Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
21-11-2019 M/s. Prasad Productions Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Prakash Raj, Proprietor, Carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Prakash Raj Productions at No.21/9, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-11-2019 Prakash Babulal Pardeshi Samata Society Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-11-2019 Phulavati Versus Prakash High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
25-10-2019 Jyoti Prakash Ganguly Versus Samrat Ghosh & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-10-2019 Anand Prakash Versus Mansha Kumari High Court of Judicature at Patna
25-10-2019 Mahendra T. Thakkar Trading as Prakash Trading Co., Pillaiyar Kulam, Inamkarisalkulam P.O. Srivilliputhur Gujarat & Another Versus N. Ranga Rao & Sons Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-10-2019 Prakash Versus The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mannachanallur, Tiruchirapalli & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-10-2019 Jay Prakash Pradhan Versus Central University of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad