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



Ram Vikram Singh (In Person) v/s State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- VIKRAM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB2000PTC091352

Company & Directors' Information:- VIKRAM INDIA LTD [Active] CIN = U29253WB1980PLC032447

Company & Directors' Information:- AT HOME INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17211DL2001PTC112255

Company & Directors' Information:- V HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109331

Company & Directors' Information:- G. P. HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U70102MH2011PTC213056

Company & Directors' Information:- H B SINGH PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29299WB1975PTC030204

Company & Directors' Information:- R N SINGH & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310JH1975PTC001224

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- SINGH AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36101PB1982PTC005152

Company & Directors' Information:- D S RAM SINGH AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1958PTC002894

Company & Directors' Information:- J N SINGH AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Liquidation] CIN = U74999DL1908PTC000014

    P.I.L. Civil No. 14000 of 2020

    Decided On, 28 August 2020

    At, High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ KUMAR JAISWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

    For the Petitioner: Raj Vikram Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: C.S.C.



Judgment Text


1. Heard Sri Raj Vikram Singh, petitioner-in-person and Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents/State.

2. By this Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-Ram Vikram Singh has prayed to declare Section 5(6) and 5(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Ceiling Act, 1972") as ultra vires to Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India as Sections 5 (6) and 5(7) of the Ceiling Act, 1972 discriminates large numbers of tenure holder of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

3. The petitioner submits that he is an Advocate by profession. According to him, a perusal of the provision of Sections 5(6) and 5(7) of the Ceiling Act, 1972, as amended, would show that these sections would apply with retrospective effect i.e. 24.01.1971, whereas Ceiling Act, 1972 was enforced w.e.f. 8.6.1973. According to him, due to applicability of the aforesaid sections with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 24.01.1971, all the partition/suits were rendered null and void which were not decided till 24.1.1971 and land of the tenure holder had vested in Government. Thus, Sections 5(6) and 5(7) of the Ceiling Act, 1972 are unconstitutional to Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the State Government has no legislative competence to fix cut off date in the aforesaid sections as it also hit Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in M.I. Kunjukunju and others Vs. State of Kerala and others : 2015 (11) SCC 440 and Eurotex Industries and Exports Limited and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another : (2017) 14 SCC 390 and has submitted that the legislatures and the competent authority under Article 309 of the Constitution of India have the power to make laws with retrospective effect. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State was not empowered to amend Sections 5(6) and 5(7) of the Ceiling Act, 1972 with retrospective effect. Moreso, amendment made in Ceiling Act, 1972 has been included in 9th Schedule and therefore, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being repugnant to second proviso to Article 31A (1) of the Constitution.

5. In Gopal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. : (1988) 2 SCC 532, the Apex Court observed that Section 5(6) of the Ceiling Act was protected under Article 31B of the Act and the Ceiling Act having been included in the 9th Schedule not open to challenge on the ground of being violative of second proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution. While deciding the case of Gopal Singh's case (supra), their Lordships followed the ratio of the decisions laid down in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors. : (1980) 3 S C C 719: AIR 1980 SC 1672.

6. In Ambika Prasad Mishra (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

"21. Proprietary personality was integral to personal liberty and a may hem inflicted on a man's property was an amputation of his personal liberty. Therefore, land reform law, if unreasonable, violates Article 21 as expansively construed in Maneka Gandhi. The dichotomy between personal liberty, in Article 21, and proprietary status, in Arts. 31 and 19 is plain, whatever philosophical justification or pragmatic realisation it may possess in political or juristic theory. Maybe, a penniless proletarian, is unfree in his movements and has nothing to lose except his chains. But we are in another domain of constitutional the jurisprudence. Of course, counsel's resort to Article 21 is prompted by the absence of mention of Article 21 in Article 31A and the illusory hope of inflating. Maneka Gandhi to impart a healing touch to those whose property is taken by feigning loss of personal liberty when the State takes only property. Maneka Gandhi is no universal nostrum or cure-all, when all other arguments fail! The last point which had a quaint moral flavour was that transfers of landed property, although executed after the dates specified in the Act were unreasonably invalidated by the Act even when there was no "mens rea" vis a vis the ceiling law on the part of the transferor and this was violative of Aticle 19 (1) (f) and of Article 14 as arbitrary. A facet of over-inclusiveness which breaches Article 14 was also urged. It is perfectly open to the legislature, as ancillary to its main policy to prevent activities which defeat the statutory purpose, to provide for invalidation of such actions. When the alienations are invalidated because they are made after a statutory date fixed with a purpose, there is sense in this prohibition. Otherwise, all the lands would have been transferred and little would have been left by way of surplus. Let us read the text of s.5(6) which is alleged to be bad being over- inclusive or otherwise anomalous. The argument, rather hard to follow and too subtle for the pragmatic of agrarian law, may be clearer when the provision is unfurled. Section 5(6) runs thus:

"In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure holder, any transfer of land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971, which but for the transfer would have been declared surplus land under this Act, shall be ignored and not taken into account .

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to:

(a) a transfer in favour of any person(including Government) referred to in sub-section(2);

(b) a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration and under an irrevocable instrument riot being a benami transaction or for immediate or deferred benefit of the tenure-holder or other members of the family.

There is no blanket ban here but only qualified invalidation of certain sinister assignments etc. Counsel weaves gossamer webs which break on mere judicial touch when he argues that transfer 'in good faith and for adequate consideration' have been unconstitutionally exempted. The bizarre submission is that 'adequate consideration' is an arbitrary test. We reject it without mere discussion. The second limb of the submission is that while s. (6) directs the authority to ignore certain transfers it does not void it. The further spin-off adroitly presented by counsel is that the provision violates the second proviso to Article 31. It is a little too baffling to follow and we dismiss the submission as hollow. The provision in s.5(6), when read in the light of the Provisos, is fair and valid."

(Emphasis supplied)

7. It is well settled that a legislative provision cannot be struck down as being arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Legislative enactment can be struck down only on two grounds, namely, (i) that the appropriate Legislative does not have competency to make the law and (ii), that it does not take away or abridge any of the fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions.

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Rakesh Kohli and another, decided on 11th May, 2012 (Civil Appeal No. 684 of 2004) has held as under :

21. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and others v. State of Bihar, while dealing with the meaning, scope and effect of Article 14, reiterated what was already explained in earlier decisions that to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) such differentia must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The Court further stated that classification might be founded on different basis, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration.

22. In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi, the Constitution Bench further observed that there was always a presumption in favour of constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles. It stated in paragraph 15 (at pgs. 740-741) of the Report as under :

"........The courts, it is accepted, must presume that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. It must be borne in mind that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest and finally that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation........."

23. The above legal position has been reiterated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi[16].

24. In Hamdard Dawakhana and another v. The Union of India and others[17], inter alia, while referring to the earlier two decisions, namely, Bengal Immunity Company Ltd.11 and Mahant Moti Das16 , it was observed in paragraph 8 (at pg. 559) of the Report as follows:

"8. Therefore, when the constitutionality of an enactment is challenged on the ground of violation of any of the articles in Part III of the Constitution, the ascertainment of its true nature and character becomes necessary i.e. its subject-matter, the area in which it is intended to operate, its purport and intent have to be determined. In order to do so it is legitimate to take into consideration all the factors such as history of the legislation, the purpose thereof, the surrounding circumstances and conditions, the mischief which it intended to suppress, the remedy for the disease which the legislature resolved to cure and the true reason for the remedy."

25. In Hamdard Dawakhana17, the Court also followed the statement of law in Mahant Moti Das16 and the two earlier decisions, namely, Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India and others[18] andThe State of Bombay and another v. F.N. Balsara[19] and reiterated the principle that presumption was always in favour of constitutionality of an enactment.

26. In one of the recent cases in Karnataka Bank Limited6, while referring to some of the above decisions, in para 19 (at pgs. 262-263) of the Report, this Court held as under :

"19. The rules that guide the constitutional courts in discharging their solemn duty to declare laws passed by a legislature unconstitutional are well known. There is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality, and a law w

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ill not be declared unconstitutional unless the case is so clear as to be free from doubt; "to doubt the constitutionality of a law is to resolve it in favour of its validity". Where the validity of a statute is questioned and there are two interpretations, one of which would make the law valid and the other void, the former must be preferred and the validity of law upheld. In pronouncing on the constitutional validity of a statute, the court is not concerned with the wisdom or unwisdom, the justice or injustice of the law. If that which is passed into law is within the scope of the power conferred on a legislature and violates no restrictions on that power, the law must be upheld whatever a court may think of it. (See State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara.)" 9. On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the cut off date made in Sections 5(6) and 5(7) of the Ceiling Act, 1972 cannot be said to be without any rationale as the issue raised in the instant writ petition has already been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambika Prasad Mishra (supra). 10. The instant Public Interest Litigation has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. 11. No order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

05-10-2020 Shekh Rafiq Versus State of Maharashtra, through it's Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 Gurcharan Singh Versus The State of Punjab Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 Jitendra Singh Dhillon Versus State of MP & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
01-10-2020 Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 M/s. Arun Kumar Kamal Kumar & Others Versus M/s. Selected Marble Home & Others Supreme Court of India
30-09-2020 A.B. Venkateswara Rao Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-09-2020 Harish Trivedi Versus State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Home & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
29-09-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another Versus S. Indramoorthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another Versus S. Indramoorthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 C. Sivasankaran Versus Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-09-2020 Manoj @ Sallar & Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-09-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by The Assistant Labour Officer, Munnar, Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam Versus Annakutty Varghese, Proprietress, M/s. Misha Holiday Home, Munnar High Court of Kerala
24-09-2020 Kajal Mukesh Singh & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Inspector-in-charge of Malad Police Station) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-09-2020 Mahabooba Jailani Versus The Home Secretary, Home Department (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Rajbahadur Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-09-2020 Kumaresan @ Chetty Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Sundaram Home Finance Limited Versus Rahul Jayvantrao Kaulavkar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-09-2020 Vaibhav Prasad Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
14-09-2020 Lakhan Singh Versus State of NCT of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
14-09-2020 Vijay Vilasrao Sutare Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through, Secretary, home department, State of Maharashtra, Mantralay Mumbai & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
14-09-2020 Rashmi Versus Vikram High Court of Karnataka
11-09-2020 Jeevitha Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary, Home,Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 Ranjeet Singh Raghuvanshi Versus The State of M.P. Through Police Station, Kotali High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-09-2020 Hriday Narayan Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-09-2020 Pyar Singh Versus Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Gyan Singh Thakur & Others Versus State of MP. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
09-09-2020 Mittal Electronics Versus Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
08-09-2020 Ramraj Singh Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-09-2020 M/s. Smart Logistics, Unity Building Puthiyapalom, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M. Gopinath Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Home Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthauram & Others High Court of Kerala
07-09-2020 Rai Singh Versus State of M.P. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-09-2020 K. Ebnezer Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Vijay Singh Yadav Versus Ajay Shanker Rai High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-09-2020 Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus State Public Service Tribunal Thru.Chairman & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
01-09-2020 Vikram Vasudeva Versus Sanjay Saxena High Court of Delhi
31-08-2020 L.B.S. Group of Eduction Institute Through Its Director Shri Prateek Mathur, Rajasthan Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-08-2020 Rajendra Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
31-08-2020 Amanpreet Singh & Others Versus Union Territory of J&K High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
31-08-2020 Gajendra Singh Negi Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
31-08-2020 Mukesh Singh Versus State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) Supreme Court of India
28-08-2020 Dalbir Singh Versus State of Nct of Delhi & Others Supreme Court of India
28-08-2020 Mahendra Yadav Versus State of Assam Represented By Home Secretary Government of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
28-08-2020 Renu Gupta Versus Ram Pal Singh, Basic Education Officer & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-08-2020 The State of Punjab & Others Versus Davinder Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
27-08-2020 Bhimsen Tyagi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government (Poll), Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
26-08-2020 Manga @ Manga Singh Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
26-08-2020 Vijendra Singh Yadav Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-08-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Versus Maninderjeet Singh Khera National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-08-2020 Raj Pal Singh Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Haryana, Rohtak Supreme Court of India
25-08-2020 Sharad Kumar Singh & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-08-2020 Vikrant Singh Malik & Others Versus Supertech Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
24-08-2020 Sumathi Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2020 Arun Kumar Singh & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-08-2020 Ranjit Singh Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
20-08-2020 Sardar Bahginder Singh Versus Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
19-08-2020 Jatinder Pal Singh @ Sunny Versus State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Constituent Attorney, Rajasthan Versus Baldev Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-08-2020 Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav @ Ritlal Ray @ Ritlal Prasad Singh Versus The U.O.I. through B. Hazara, Assistant Director, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (Complainant) & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-08-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-08-2020 G. Naganna Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-08-2020 M/S Anjaneya Bisanpur Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Dilawar Singh Rawat & Another High Court of Delhi
17-08-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Versus Shailendra Prasad Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Preet Pal Singh Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another Supreme Court of India
14-08-2020 Rabindra Singh Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-08-2020 Kasmikoya Biyyammabiyoda & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Home Secretary, Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
14-08-2020 Satyavir Singh & Others Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
14-08-2020 Salman @ Baba Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
14-08-2020 R. Suresh Kumar Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Home Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-08-2020 A. Pushpaganthi Versus The State rep by its the Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 Thripurala Suresh Versus The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-08-2020 Surinder Singh Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
11-08-2020 Vijay Pal Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
10-08-2020 Malvinder Mohan Singh Versus State of NCT of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
10-08-2020 Akshay Kumar Singh & Another Versus Union Of India & Ors. & Another High Court of Delhi
07-08-2020 State of Bihar & Others Ram Chandra Singh High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-08-2020 Mohemmed @ Bava Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary to Home, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
07-08-2020 S. Thangam Versus The Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 S. Thangam Versus The Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 Surender Singh Dahiya, Additional Director, Agriculture Department, Government of Haryana (Panchkula) Versus Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
06-08-2020 Vadde Padmamma Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-08-2020 Rajesh Singh Rana Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
05-08-2020 L. Srinivasan Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others Versus Siva Lakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Shailendra Singh Versus M/s. Vittal Cashew Industries, Represented by its Partner H. Ganesh Kamath & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-08-2020 Baliram Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Section Officer Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
31-07-2020 Iqbal Singh Versus State High Court of Delhi
30-07-2020 C.R. Mahesh Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
30-07-2020 Mahrishi Arvind Institute of Engineering, Rajasthan Versus Ranjit Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana & Another Versus Jaswant Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Mahua Bindal & Others Versus Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Others High Court of Delhi
30-07-2020 Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravai High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-07-2020 Abhishek Kumar Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
29-07-2020 Ved Prakash Goel @ Ved Goel & Another Versus S.D. Singh & Another Supreme Court of India
28-07-2020 Nalini Singh Versus Lt. Col. Rajesh Kumar Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-07-2020 LT. Col. Amrik Singh (Retired) & Another Versus The Govt. of U.P. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC