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



Rajendra v/s Jugalkishor & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- RAJENDRA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1943PLC000306

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJENDRA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17219TZ1948PTC000161

    Writ Petition No. 6364 of 2016

    Decided On, 10 February 2020

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH PITALE

    For the Petitioner: M.D. Lakhey, Counsel. For the Respondents: K.J. Topale, Counsel.



Judgment Text


Oral Judgment:

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

3. By this writ petition, the petitioner (original plaintiff) has challenged orders passed by the Court below, dismissing in default the suit filed by the petitioner, and thereafter, refusing to restore the same by holding that if the sufficiency of cause sought to be shown by the petitioner was to be considered by the Court below, it would not be appropriate because as per the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) this was an aspect which could be considered only in an appeal. The said order of the Court below was then challenged by the petitioner by filing appeal before the District Court, which stood dismissed by judgment and order, which is also under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. The brief facts leading upto filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner had filed a suit for partition and separate possession in the year 2004. The suit stood dismissed in default by impugned order dated 25/02/2010, passed by the Court below. It was observed in the said order that issues had been framed on 24/03/2008 and since then the matter was kept for hearing. It was then specifically observed that the petitioner (plaintiff) was absent, while his Advocate was present who was unable to furnish any reason for not adducing evidence and that no application for adjournment was on record. Thereafter, it was recorded that there was no option, but to dismiss the suit. Accordingly, the suit stood dismissed in default.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside dismissal of the suit and seeking restoration of the suit. The said application was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. It is undisputed that the application for condonation of delay was allowed by the Court below, subject to deposit of costs by the petitioner. It is also undisputed that the said amount of costs were deposited by the petitioner.

6. Thereafter, when the application for setting aside the order dated 25/02/2010 and for restoration of the suit came up for consideration, in the impugned order dated 28/06/2013 passed by the Court below, it was held that considering the said application would amount to the same Court sitting in appeal over its order. On this basis, the Court below refused to consider the sufficiency of cause demonstrated by the petitioner, holding that the same could be examined in an appeal.

7. Reference was made to judgment of this Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Vikram Seth reported in 2012(3) Mh.L.J. 394.

8. This order was made subject matter of challenge by the petitioner in an appeal before the District Court. The appeal also stood dismissed by impugned judgment and order dated 26/04/2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

9. Mr. M. D. Lakhey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Courts below committed an error in refusing to consider the sufficiency of cause shown by the petitioner and in failing to consider the application for restoration of the suit. It was submitted that the Court below could have exercised power under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was submitted that reference to Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC and making that as the basis for not considering the application for restoration, demonstrated an erroneous approach by the Courts below. It was submitted that the facts in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Vikram Seth (supra), were distinguishable from facts of the present case. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Raghunath Kishanrao Thigle vs. Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad reported in 2012 (2) Mh.L.J. 560 to contend that the Court below ought to have considered the sufficiency of cause demonstrated by the petitioner, particularly when the application for condonation of delay had been allowed in favour of the petitioner.

10. On the other hand Mr. K. J. Topale, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Court below had correctly applied the ratio of judgment in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Vikram Seth (supra) and the provisions under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC, to hold that considering the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner would amount to the Court below sitting in appeal over its own order dismissing the suit. Additionally, reliance was placed on judgments of this Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. M/s. Kumar Apparel Industries and others reported in 2002 (4) ALL MR 682 and The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Sree. Shanmugar Mills and anr. reported in 2012 (2) ALL MR 554. It was submitted that on a proper application of Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC to the facts of the present case, it would become clear that no error is attributable to the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.

11. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material on record. In order to examine as to the nature of the order passed by the Court below while dismissing the suit, it would be necessary to peruse the order dated 25/02/2010 passed by the Court below and to specifically appreciate the expressions used therein. A perusal of the order shows that it is clearly recorded by the Court that the petitioner (plaintiff) was absent, although Advocate representing the petitioner was present in Court. It was also recorded that the Advocate was unable to furnish any reason for not adducing evidence and further that there was no application for adjournment. It is significant that having noted these facts, the Court specifically dismissed the suit in default.

12. The question is, as to when the dismissal of the suit was in default and the petitioner (plaintiff) was absent, which would be the source of power exercised by the Court below while dismissing the suit in default. It is also relevant that in the said order there is no reference made to the fact as to whether the defendant was present in Court. Therefore, this Court has to proceed on the basis of the fact recorded in the order dated 25/02/2010 that the plaintiff was absent when the suit stood dismissed in default. It can not specifically be concluded that the defendant was present.

13. In this backdrop, when Order 17 of the CPC is perused, it becomes clear that the Court is to proceed under Rule 3 thereof. Before proceeding to apply the said provision to the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate that relevant portion of Order 17 of CPC is reproduced, which reads as follows:-

“Order 17 Rule 1. …………….

2.– Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed.– Where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear, the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit.

3.– Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence, etc. – Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, [the Court may notwithstanding such default,-

(a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith; or

(b) If the parties are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under rule 2”

14. A perusal of the above provision, particularly Rule 3 of Order 17 of the CPC, shows that where a party to the suit is granted time to produce evidence and it fails to do so, the Court has two options to proceed in the matter, i.e. (a) if the parties are present then to proceed to decide the suit forthwith or (b) if the parties are absent or any of them is absent, to proceed under Rule 2 of Order 17 of the CPC. In the present case, there can be no dispute about the fact that the petitioner (plaintiff) was absent on 25/02/2010. Therefore, the Court was necessarily required to proceed under Order 9 of the CPC. Order 9 of the CPC pertains to appearance of parties and consequence of non-appearance. Order 9 Rule 3 provides for a contingency where neither party appears and the suit is dismissed, while order 9 Rule 8 deals with the contingency where only the defendants appear.

15. In the present case, the order dated 25/02/2010 clearly records that the petitioner (plaintiff) was absent. It is not recorded that the defendants were present. Therefore, Order 9 Rule 8 would certainly not apply. In this situation, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the manner in which the power was exercised by the Court below while dismissing the suit in default by order dated 25/02/2010, the source of such power can be traced only to Order 9 Rule 3 of the CPC. Once such a conclusion is reached, the Court would exercise power under Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC, which again gives two options to the Court. One would be for the plaintiff to bring a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation or the Court itself could set aside the order of dismissal, if it was satisfied that the party applying for such setting aside of dismissal had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance when the suit was dismissed.

16. In the present case, the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside of order dated 25/02/2010 and for restoration of the suit ought to have been considered by the Court below under Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC, to examine whether sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner. But instead of exercising such power, the Court below proceeded on the basis that considering such cause sought to be shown by the petitioner would amount to sitting in appeal over its own order. In this regard reference was made to judgment of this Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Vikram Seth (supra) and Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC. This Court is of the opinion that the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the present case. In any case, even if Order 17 Rule 3 of CPC was to be applied to the facts of the present case, the only option available for the Court below was to have proceeded under Order 17 Rule 3(b) of the CPC, since the petitioner (plaintiff) was absent when order dated 25/02/2010 was passed. Consequently Order 17 Rule 2 of the CPC would come into operation, bringing the Court back to exercise of power under Order 9 of the CPC. This aspect was not appreciated in the correct perspective by the Court below. Similarly, the facts of the case in Judgment of this Court in State Bank of India vs. M/s. Kumar Apparel Industries and others (supra) and The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Sree. Shanmugar Mills and anr. (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of this case.

17. The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Raghunath Kishanrao Thigle vs. Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad (supra), appears to be closer on facts to the present case. In the said case also this Court came to the categorical conclusion that the only option available for the Court was to consider a similar situation under Order 9 Rule 3 of the CPC.

18. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the Court below committed an error in passing the impugned order dated 28/06/2013, refusing to consider the application for setting aside order dated 25/02/2010 filed on behalf of the petitioner. The District Court also failed to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in the correct perspective while passing the impugned order dated 26/04/2016.

19. But at the same time, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition in the present case cannot be allowed in its entirety. The matter needs to be sent back to the Court below for considering the application f

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

iled on behalf of the petitioner at Exh.10 on its own merits. This is because the Court below, as the Court of first instance, ought to consider whether the petitioner was able to show sufficient cause for non-appearance when the order dated 25/02/2010 was passed by the Court below. 20. In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed in the following terms:- (a) The impugned order dated 28/06/2013, passed by the Court below and the judgment and order dated 26/04/2016, passed by the District Court are quashed and set aside. (b) The matter is remanded back to the Court below to consider the application (Exh.10) afresh, to examine as to whether the petitioner was able to demonstrate sufficient cause while seeking setting aside order dated 25/02/2010 and for restoration of the suit. (c) Considering the fact that the suit for partition and separate possession has been pending since the year 2004, it would be appropriate that the Court below considers and disposes of application at Exh.10 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six weeks from today. (d) The parties shall appear before the Court below i.e. Court of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha on 18th February 2020. 21. Rule made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

31-08-2020 Rajendra Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
24-08-2020 M/s. Govindhji Jewat & Co., Represented by its Partner Rajendra Kone & Others Versus M/s. Rukmani Mills Ltd., Represented by its Board of Directors, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-08-2020 Atalbiharikumar Rajendra Mandal Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
23-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Authorized signatory, Pravin Prabhakar Prabhu Versus Kameshwari Rajendra Sabnis & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
30-06-2020 Union Bank of India, Through Shri R. Rajendra Prasad, Branch Manager, Raichur Versus M/s. Tirumala Enterprises, Raichur National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Rajendra Singh & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
26-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar & Others Versus Raj Kumar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-05-2020 Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport Undertaking Versus Rajendra Visanji Thakkar & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar Chandrol Versus High Court of Madhya Pradesh
21-04-2020 Babu Rajendra Versus Basalingappa & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-03-2020 Satish Kumar Khandelwal V/S Rajendra Jain & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
24-02-2020 Manaj Tollway Private Limited Versus Rajendra Rahane Superintending Engineer & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-02-2020 Rajendra K. Bhutta Versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Another Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, New Delhi Versus Rajendra Sudamrao Shinde & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-02-2020 Nisar Ahmad Versus Rajendra Kumar Soni & Others High Court of Delhi
17-01-2020 Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt Thro Shweta Sanjiv Bhatt Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
17-01-2020 Rajendra Mishra Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-01-2020 Rajendra Saxena & Another Versus Sharda Ratnam & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-01-2020 Rajendra Kumar Verma & Another Versus Dolly Rani Bag & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-01-2020 Harendra Ramchandra Pathak Versus Rajendra Ratan Mhatre High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-01-2020 Dr. N. Rajendra Prasad & Others Versus Lingampally Srinivas & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
06-01-2020 Rajendra Kumar Khera & Others Versus U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-12-2019 Rajendra Manohar Kowli & Another Versus Bank of India Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
26-12-2019 Rajendra Girdhar Patel Versus State Of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
10-12-2019 Rajendra Diwan Versus Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Another Supreme Court of India
03-12-2019 Rajendra Singh Tomar & Others Versus State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary & Others Supreme Court of India
02-12-2019 Sathi Khurana Versus Rajendra Singh Khurana High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-12-2019 Ajit Rajendra Bhagwat & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-11-2019 Balasaheb Govind Basugade Versus Rajendra Shivaji Kumthekar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-11-2019 Jaihind Sahakari Pani Purvatha Mandali Ltd. Shirdhon, Kolhapur Versus Rajendra Bandu Khot & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-11-2019 Rajendra Prasad Versus Sikkim University & Others High Court of Sikkim
25-10-2019 K. Rajendra Prasad & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-10-2019 Rajendra Agrawal Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-10-2019 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rajendra Kumar & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
25-09-2019 Kalpana Rajendra Kothari & Others Versus Santosh Arvind Jangam & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-09-2019 Krushna Shivaji Patil Versus Parmanand Rajendra Patil & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-09-2019 M/s. Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Kanthibai Rajendra Sheth Versus M/s. E.C. Bose & Company Private Limited, Kolkata & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2019 Raju @ Rajendra Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-08-2019 Rajendra Mahadeorao Chaudhary Versus Gajanan Keshavrao Bore In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-08-2019 Rajendra Kumar Goyal & Another Versus South City Project (Kolkata) Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-08-2019 Rajendra Pandit Versus Union of India, Through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-08-2019 Rajendra Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-07-2019 N. Rajendra Reddy Versus The Block Development Officer, Sholingur Panchayat Union, Vellore District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2019 Rajendra Versus Gopinath In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-07-2019 Rajendra Versus Vikas & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-07-2019 Rajendra Agarwal & Others Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
22-07-2019 Rajendra Prasad Sharma Versus M/s. Hartin Harris Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-07-2019 Sujan Bhabani Prasad Chatterjee & Another Versus Rajendra Kumar Singh & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-07-2019 C. Rajendra Prasad Versus The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-07-2019 Rajendra Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-07-2019 Rajendra Kumar through Nisar Mohammad Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh
01-07-2019 Rajendra Shivsing Chanda & Others Versus Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
17-06-2019 Rajendra Kumar Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
30-04-2019 Siddesh Tours and Travels (Prop.Shri Rajendra Ramdas Yerandekar) Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai VII Commissionerate High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-04-2019 Dr. P. Rajendra Prasad Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-04-2019 Sant Kejaji Maharaj Smruti & Another Versus Rajendra Deoraoji Raut & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-04-2019 Rajendra Singh & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
09-04-2019 Raju @ Rajendra Dashrath Khaire & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-03-2019 Rajendra Versus State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
28-03-2019 Rajendra Kumar Goyal Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-03-2019 Rajendra R. Vishwakarma Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2019 Rajendra Vitthal Bahirat & Another Versus Prakash Ramchandra Girame High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2019 Rajendra Chawla & Others Versus Chandra Prakash Chabda & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
15-02-2019 National Federation of Fishers Cooperatives Ltd., Through its Managing Director & Another Versus Rajendra Singh & Others High Court of Delhi
12-02-2019 Rajendra Singh Negi Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
12-02-2019 Hiteshkumar Rameshbhai Patel Versus Rajendra Mataprasad Yadav High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
12-02-2019 Ashruba Dhondiba Gade Versus Rajendra Shankar Sut & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
31-01-2019 Rajendra Lalitkumar Agrawal Versus Ratna Ashok Muranjan & Another Supreme Court of India
24-01-2019 Rajendra Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan Through PP. High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
23-01-2019 Rajendra Sharma Versus Union Of India Through Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-01-2019 Rajendra Pundlikrao Deore & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary ? Coo-peration & Marketing Dept. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-01-2019 Rajendra Kumar Bagaria Versus State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation & Another High Court of Jharkhand
10-01-2019 Rajendra Prasad Pal & Another Versus State of U.P.Thru. Prin Secy Deptt of Basic Edu & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
09-01-2019 Veer Rajendra Rajput Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-01-2019 B. Rajendra Kumar Versus The Airport Authority of India, New Delhi, Represented by Its Chairman & Others High Court of Kerala
07-01-2019 Rajendra Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
02-01-2019 Rajendra Prasad Rao Versus Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Dhurwa, Ranchi High Court of Jharkhand
12-12-2018 Sant Shankar Maharaj Ashram Trust, Pimpalkhuta, through its Secretary, Rajendra Versus State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Social Justice & Special Assistance Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
12-12-2018 Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
07-12-2018 State Transport Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Versus Rajendra Sudhakar Mahalpure High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-11-2018 Rajendra Ramakant Vedpathak Versus Tarvidersingh Harbansingh Popali & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-11-2018 Rajendra Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
01-11-2018 M/s. RA Chem Pharma Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, J. Rajendra Rao & Another Versus State of A.P. Rep. by the Public Prosecutor & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
01-11-2018 Rajendra Prasad Singh & Others Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
30-10-2018 Shrikant & Rajendra Vilas Choudhary Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-10-2018 Jonnalgadda Rajendra Prasad/Edukondalur RP & Others Versus Sri Yogananda Lakshmi Narasimhaswami Vari Temple, Rep. by its Single Trustee-cum-hereditary Archaka, Parasaram Lakshmi Vara Prasad, Avanigadda In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
23-10-2018 Rajendra Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh Supreme Court of India
19-10-2018 Kallinath Shivyogi Dhange Versus Rajendra @ Apparao Mdhukarrao Vedpathak & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
10-10-2018 Pankaj @ Pintu Rajendra Marve Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-10-2018 A. Rajendra & Others Versus The State, Represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruchendur & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-09-2018 Rajendra Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-09-2018 Hemant Kumar Jalan & Others Versus Rajendra Bajoria & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-09-2018 Khomdram Rajendra Singh Versus The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
07-09-2018 Rajendra Dagdulal Bafna & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-09-2018 Shivaraj V/S Rajendra and Others. Supreme Court of India
03-09-2018 Rajendra Kumar Hirawat & Another Versus Acit Non Corporate Circle 9 (1) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai