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



Rattan Lal Bharadwaj v/s Magma Financial Corporation Ltd. & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- RATTAN LAL AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC016696

Company & Directors' Information:- C. LAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2012PLC046499

Company & Directors' Information:- H C FINANCIAL LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U65910GJ1982PLC004967

Company & Directors' Information:- RATTAN CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26914CH2013PTC034442

Company & Directors' Information:- R G FINANCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65923DL1984PTC018552

    First Appeal No. 1912 of 2019

    Decided On, 16 January 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. DINESH SINGH
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: S.R. Bansal, Advocate. For the Respondents: --------



Judgment Text


Dinesh Singh, Member

1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, impugning the Order dated 03.05.2019 in C.C. No. 931 of 2018 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’.

2. The Appellant herein, Mr. Rattan Lal Bhardwaj, was the Complainant before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.

The Respondents herein, Magma Financial Corporation Limited, were the Opposite Parties No. 1 and No. 2 before the State Commission, and are hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Financial Corporation’.

3. On 27.09.2019, we heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant, Mr. S. R. Bansal, Advocate on admission in the Circuit Bench at Chandigarh. The Order was reserved.

4. The Complainant filed an ‘Application for permission to advance further remaining arguments (Re-hearing)’, being I.A. No. 19540 of 2019. We heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant, Mr. S. R. Bansal, Advocate on the said I.A. on 18.12.2019 in Bench No. 1 at New Delhi.

5. The Appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 55 days. We have perused the Application for Condonation of Delay. The reasons for delay, as stated in paras 1 to 6 of the said Application, point towards managerial inefficiency and perfunctory and causal attitude to the law of limitation, they are illogical and absurd in explaining convincingly and cogently the delay in filing the Appeal.

Sufficient cause to explain the delay is not visible.

However, in the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the Complainant, and to settle the matter on merit, the delay is condoned.

6. The case taken by the Complainant before the State Commission was that the Complainant along with 5 other co-borrowers took a loan from ICICI Bank Ltd.

The Complainant and the 5 other co-borrowers got the loan transferred to an NBFC, GE COUNTRYWIDE Consumer Financial Services Limited, hereinafter being referred to as ‘GE Financial Services’.

A loan agreement was entered into by the Complainant and the 5 other co-borrowers with GE Financial Services on 13.04.2006 for a loan of Rs. 61,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum and equated monthly instalments of Rs.64,429/- payable in 180 months commencing from 07.06.2006 and ending on 07.05.2021 (15 years).

The rate of interest was periodically re-visited by GE Financial Services, with the equated monthly instalments kept undisturbed.

Effective from 01.01.2011 the rate of interest was increased to 11.66% per annum payable in 228 months commencing from 07.06.2006 and ending on 07.05.2025 (19 years), with the equated monthly instalments retained undisturbed at Rs. 64,429/-.

The Complainant and the 5 other co-borrowers regularly paid the equated monthly instalments to GE Financial Services.

A deed of assignment was entered into between GE Financial Services and the Financial Corporation, the Respondent herein, whereby the assets and liabilities of GE Financial Services were taken over by the Financial Corporation.

The Complainant and the 5 other co-borrowers then regularly paid the equated monthly instalments to the Financial Corporation.

The Complainant sent a legal notice to the Financial Corporation on 08.03.2017.

A Complaint alleging ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ was filed by the Complainant before the State Commission on 29.11.2018. The other 5 co-borrowers were not co-complainants.

7. The principal grievances of the Complainant were that:

one: On his taking a loan from ICICI Bank Ltd., officials of GE Financial Services “approached” him and “pressed” him to avail loan from it by “convincing” him that the rate of interest will remain 1% less than the “market rate” and the rate being charged by other banks.

two: The Financial Corporation unilaterally and arbitrarily increased the rate of interest and enhanced the period of repayment from time to time.

three: The Financial Corporation violated RBI’s directions on ‘Regulation of excessive interest charged by NBFCs’ as notified by Notification No. DNBS. 2004 / CGM (ASR) – 2009 dated 02.01.2009, hereinafter being referred to as the ‘RBI Notification’.

four: The Financial Corporation did not provide relevant and material information of his loan to him.

five: Without the consent of the Complainant, the loan was taken over from GE Financial Services by the Financial Corporation.

8. We note that the State Commission heard both sides, appraised the evidence, and dismissed the Complaint.

9. We further note that the State Commission decided the preliminary issues of pecuniary jurisdiction, limitation and mis-joinder of parties in favour of the Complainant and dismissed the Complaint by deciding the substantive dispute on merit.

10. We furthermore note that the State Commission weighed the evidence and dealt with the substantive matter in dispute by passing a reasoned Order.

11. The Complainant entered into the loan agreement with GE Financial Services with eyes open. The loan agreement dated 13.04.2006 was signed by the Complainant as well as by the 5 other co-borrowers.

12. No evidence has been adduced by the Complainant before the State Commission that the officials of GE Financial Services “approached” him and “pressed” him to avail loan from it by “convincing” him that the rate of interest will remain 1% less than the “market rate” and the rate being charged by other banks.

13. The rate of interest of 9.5% with 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs.64,429/- commencing from 07.06.2006 and ending on 07.05.2021 (15 years) was known to the Complainant when he entered into the loan agreement with GE Financial Services.

14. It was also known to the Complainant, when he entered into the loan agreement, that the loan agreement contained an explicit and categorical provision, being clause 2.2.1, which inter alia allowed for adopting ‘New Interest Rate’. The said clause 2.2.1 is reproduced below:

“2. Rate of Interest

2.1 The Borrower shall pay the Company interest (“Interest”) on the Loan at the rates and in the manner mentioned below from the date of disbursement of the Loan till the repayment of the Loan in full:-

(i) For such period from the date of disbursement of the Loan as is mentioned at Item No.(7) of the Schedule (“the Initial Interest Period”) the Borrower shall pay Interest on the outstanding Loan amount at the rate mentioned at item No. (8) of the Schedule with monthly rests.

(ii) For the balance period of the Loan after the expiry of the Initial Interest Period, the Borrower shall pay Interest on the outstanding Loan amount at the New Interest Rate (as defined in Clause [(iii)] below) with monthly rests in the manner mentioned hereunder:-

(a) The Company shall determine the New Interest Rate which is to be applicable on and from the expiry of the Initial Interest Period. The Company shall thereafter apply the New Interest Rate to the principal amount of the Loan then outstanding and, on the basis thereof, recompute the amount and/or period of the EMIs (as defined in Clause [3.1] below) for the balance period in accordance with the Company’s norms for computing EMIs. The Company shall recompute the EMIs as per its norms in such manner that the amount of each EMI remains the same as the existing EMIs and the number of balance EMIs is decreased or Increased appropriately to account for the repayment of the principal Loan amount and payment of Interest at the New Interest Rate. Provided that if, on account of such recomputation as aforesaid, the repayment period of the Loan and Interest extends beyond 11 years from the date of disbursement of the Loan or the retirement age for salaried or self-employed persons (as applicable to the Borrower) as per the Company’s norms prevailing at the relevant time then the amount of each EMI shall be increased appropriately such that the principal Loan amount and Interest at the New Interest Rate are repaid/paid to the Company within the 11 year period or before the retirement age mentioned above, whichever is earlier.

(b) The aforesaid recomputation and determination will be done and communicated by the Company to the Borrower three months prior to the expiry of the Initial Interest Period, and shall be binding on the Borrower.

(iii) “New Interest Rate” shall mean the rate of interest which is equal to the GE Countrywide’s Home Equity Published Rate of Interest prevailing three months prior to the expiry of the Initial Interest Period”.

15. The enhancement in the period of repayment was a natural consequence of the equated monthly instalments being kept constant when increasing the rate of interest.

16. The Complainant paid monthly instalments from 07.06.2006 onwards. He did not object or agitate for a period of over 10 years, till he sent a legal notice on 08.03.2017.

He instituted his Complaint before the State Commission in November 2018 i.e. after over 12 years from June 2006 (i.e. the month from which the monthly repayments commenced) and after over 7 years from February 2011 (i.e. the month from which the rate of interest was last increased by GE Financial Services).

17. The RBI Notification referred to by the Complainant reads as below:

Notification No. DNBS.204/ CGM (ASR)-2009 dated January 2, 2009

The Reserve Bank of India, on being satisfied that for the purpose of enabling to regulate the credit system of the country to its advantage, it is necessary so to do, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 45 L of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934) and of all the powers enabling it in this behalf, hereby issues the following Directions to NBFCs:

a) The Board of each NBFC shall adopt an interest rate model taking into account relevant factors such as, cost of funds, margin and risk premium, etc. and determine the rate of interest to be charged for loans and advances. The rate of interest and the approach for gradations of risk and rationale for charging different rate of interest to different categories of borrowers shall be disclosed to the borrower or customer in the application form and communicated explicitly in the sanction letter.

b) The rate of interest and the approach for gradation of risks shall also be made available on the Web-site of the companies or published in the relevant newspapers. The information published in the website or otherwise published should be updated whenever there is a change in the rates of interest.

c) The rate of interest should be annualized rates so that the borrower is aware of the exact rates that would be charged to the account.

The RBI Notification allows for determining the rate of interest, taking into account the relevant factors.

18. We may first say that arbitrary anyhow increase in the rate of interest, without reason, without rational consideration of the relevant factors, in violation of the RBI Notification, or of any other RBI direction(s), could, in the facts and context of a particular case, constitute ‘deficiency in service’ and / or ‘unfair trade practice’ under the Act, independent and separate of the culpability and accountability to the RBI.

In the case at hand however no evidence has been adduced by the Complainant to show that the GE Financial Services / Financial Corporation took arbitrary anyhow decision(s) to increase the rate of interest in violation of the RBI Notification. It is also relevant that the increase in rate of interest was made prospective (and was not retrospective).

19. The RBI Notification also mandates that the rate of interest should be intimated to the borrowers and also put in the public domain.

We may say that non-disclosure of increase in rate of interest to the borrowers and to the general public at large could, in the facts and context of a particular case, constitute ‘deficiency in service’ and / or ‘unfair trade practice’ under the Act, independent and separate of the culpability and the accountability to the RBI.

In the case at hand however the evidence on record shows that the increase in the rate of interest was intimated to the Complainant. Also, the Complainant continued to pay monthly instalments as per the increased rate of interest, which on the face of it itself shows that the increase was in his knowledge. No evidence has been adduced that the increase in the rate of interest was not put in the public domain.

20. We may further say that not providing relevant and material information to the borrower-‘consumer’ regarding his loan would attract the provisions of the Act, irrespective of whether or not any guidelines or directions from the RBI or any other regulatory authority mandate the same, it being reasonable, just and logical that the ‘consumer’ should know the relevant and material information of his loan as a matter of his Consumer Rights.

In the case at hand it is however noted that the relevant and material information of his loan was regularly provided to the Complainant.

21. The State Commission has aptly dealt with these aspects in para 15 of its Order:

- - -. Ex. C-4 is the loan account ledger dated 19.03.2009 issued by GE Money for customer name Rattan Lal Bhardwaj in which all the details regarding the loan account No. HFPC00000070 have been categorically mentioned including the loan amount, original tenor, disbursal date, interest rate, principal amount, interest amount, future principal, future interest etc. Even in the final interest statement Ex. C-5, which has been duly acknowledged by the complainant that this intimation was sent to hi on 28.07.2009, clearly gives the details of the finance availed by him against his loan account number. Furthermore, Ex. C-6 dated 30.08.2010 is another final interest statement of similar nature issued by GE Money to the complainant giving a breakup of the principal amount and interest amount and principal and interest realized in detail. Ex. C-7 placed on record by the complainant is the letter written by GE Money to the complainant with regard to the revision of terms and conditions of home equity loan account No. HFPC00000070 and the relevant portion regarding the rate changed and higher loan tenure is mentioned. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“It is our endeavour to keep you updated about your loan account at all times. Due to increase in cost of funds, benchmark floating reference rate for GE Money Financial Service Pvt. Ltd. has been increased by 0.75% with effect from 1st of January 11, which will lead to an increment in your rate of interest resulting in higher loan tenure. This will be effective, February ’11 Equated Monthly Instalment (EMI) onwards.

The Revised terms of your loan are mentioned as below:

New Interest Rate 11.66

New Tenure 228”

The OPs have also placed on record Ex. R-1 along with the complaint which is the interest statement dated 09th April, 2007 final interest statement dated 28.07.2009, interest statement for the period of 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, account statement dated 30.08.2010 to rebut the contention of the complainant that he was never supplied with any account statement or information regarding any revision in tenure of the loan period modification in EMI. The OPs have also placed on record Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3 which are the complete statement of account and amortization schedule in respect of the said loan account wherein the complete break up of the interest and principal is given to support their contention. It has also been pleaded by the OPs that such statement of accounts could have also been taken by the complainant at any time on payment of requisite charges if he so desired. From all the pleadings evidence and arguments raised before us, we are of the opinion that the complainant cannot take this plea at this stage that he was not informed by the OPs regarding the revision and modification in his loan agreement.

22. In his legal notice of 08.03.2017, in para 3, it has been averred that “ - - - without any consent of our client, loan sanctioned and granted by GE Money was taken over by your company whereas there is no agreement by our client with your company but still as a good customer our client had been issuing the cheques of monthly instalments - - -”.

However, there is an explicit and categorical provision in the loan agreement, being clause 9, Assignment, which allows that “The Company shall be entitled to sell, assign, securities or transfer the Company’s rights and obligations under this Agreement and any security in favour of the Company to any person(s) of the Company’s choice in whole or in part and in such manner and on such terms as the Company may decide, without reference or intimation to or consent of the Borrower or any other person. Any such sale, assignment, securitization or transfer shall conclusively bind the Borrower.- - -”.

23. To sum up, we notice that [a] no evidence has been adduced to show that officials of GE Financial Services “approached” the Complainant and “pressed” him to avail loan from it by “convincing” him that the rate of interest will remain 1% less than the “market rate” and the rate being charged by other banks, [b] no evidence has been adduced to show that the GE Financial Services took arbitrary anyhow decisions to increase the rate of interest, [c] the increase in the rate of interest was in accordance with an explicit and unequivocal clause in the loan agreement, [d] the enhancement in the period of repayment was a natural c

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

onsequence of keeping the monthly instalments constant, [e] the increase in the rate of interest was intimated to the Complainant, [f] information as relevant and material was provided to the Complainant on a regular basis and [g] it was written upfront in the loan agreement that the GE Financial Services could assign its assets and liabilities (to the Financial Corporation in this case). 24. Very significantly, we note that the Complainant has placed nothing on record to show that he has been singled out for discrimination or has been differently treated from other similarly situate persons by the Financial Corporation. 25. Sequel to the above discussion, the case of the Complainant fails. 26. We, however, make it clear that the Complainant’s case fails on the basis of the evidence produced before the State Commission and in specific respect of the allegations of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ under the Act (only). We have not entered into the arena per se of violation or otherwise of RBI’s guidelines and directions. The examination in respect of the RBI Notification has been limited to the evidence adduced by the Complainant on this count (only) and confined to the scope and ambit of the Act (only). Accordingly, the critique made herein in no manner affects the Complainant’s right to make his grievances with the central bank, the RBI, or any other regulatory authority concerned. Conversely, it also in no manner affects the Financial Corporation’s culpability and accountability to the RBI or any other regulatory authority concerned. To state the obvious, our examination, limited to the scope and ambit of the Act, in no manner affects or impinges on the regulatory functions and authority of the RBI under The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 or of any other regulatory authority working in its assigned domain. 27. With the afore examination and observations, the Appeal is dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

14-10-2020 Chander Rattan & Another Versus Delhi Transport Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
13-10-2020 M/S. Device Driven (India) Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director, Indu Lakshmy Lal & Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
07-10-2020 A. Kumar Versus Financial Intelligence Unit – India, New Delhi & Another Versius Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 Laddu Lal Mahto Versus Managing Director, Tata Motors Limited, Bihar & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others Versus Goverdhan Lal Soni & Another Supreme Court of India
08-09-2020 Murari Lal Versus State of U.P & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-08-2020 Chhotey Lal Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-08-2020 Greencrest Financial Services Limited Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
18-08-2020 Lal Chand Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
11-08-2020 Shankar Lal Yadav & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
06-08-2020 Ram Lal Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
28-07-2020 N. Madhavan Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2020 Pyare Lal Versus State of Haryana Supreme Court of India
15-07-2020 Marex Financial Ltd. Versus Sevilleja United Kingdom Supreme Court
30-06-2020 Sindhu. S. Lal Versus Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor & Others High Court of Kerala
29-06-2020 Mohan Lal Jain Versus Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Another High Court of Delhi
26-06-2020 Amrut Lal @ Amrit Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
23-06-2020 Munna Lal Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical & Health Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Jivan Lal Verma Versus Kishan Agrotek National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Moti Lal @ Moti Lal Patwa Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance through the Director, Enforcement Directorate, Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-06-2020 Latelraj Suryawanshi (Latelram Suryawanshi wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment) Versus Hori Lal Tamboli & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
29-05-2020 Financial Services Complaints Limited Versus The Chief Ombudsman Court of Appeal of New Zealand
21-05-2020 Aravapalli Krishna Murthy Versus Syed Lal Saheb Died & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 Diwari Lal & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
11-05-2020 Shiv Lal (Since Deceased) Versus Mohan Lal High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-05-2020 Mohan Lal Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
30-04-2020 Jagdish Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-04-2020 Babu Lal Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
08-04-2020 N. Rajagopal Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-03-2020 Babu Lal & Others Versus Para Devi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal Supreme Court of India
11-03-2020 Ram Dulari & Another Versus Ram Lal & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
09-03-2020 Citi-financial Retail Services India Ltd., Rep. by its Assistant Manager-Collections J. Srikumar Versus Dove Finance Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Digamber Bhondwe Versus JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
29-02-2020 Lal Chand Versus State of H.P. High Court of Himachal Pradesh
28-02-2020 Vasant Mishrilal Parakh & Others Versus TATA Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-02-2020 Aman Khattar Versus Jawahar Lal High Court of Delhi
27-02-2020 Dhariwal Infrastructure Limited Mr. Subhransu Gupta, Chief Financial Officer CESE House Chowringhe Square Kolkata Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
27-02-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
26-02-2020 M/s. Kiran Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Manohar Lal Ahuja, Uttar Pradesh Versus Yashpal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2020 Gautam Sinha V/S UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, Financial Creditor 704, New Delhi & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
20-02-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra Versus M/s. Dangi Financial & Management Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-02-2020 M/s. Behari Lal & sons V/S The State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
18-02-2020 M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions (P) Ltd. Dwaraka, New Delhi, Registered Office Bhatinda, Punjab, Represented by Its Director, Vikas Mehta Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Dr. Hira Lal Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
18-02-2020 IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. V/S SKIL Infrastructure Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-02-2020 Sukanta Kumar Sarangi Versus Managing Director, Orissa State Financial Corporation, OMP Chhak, Cuttack & Others High Court of Orissa
14-02-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Manager, Delhi Versus Chaman Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Jhanak Lal V/S State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Chattisgarh
13-02-2020 Vikas Panchayat, Gram Boheda Through Sarpanch, Rajasthan Versus Badri Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Ashok Alias Gore Lal Veruss State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Kanhaiya Lal Versus Lala Ram & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Kerala Financial Corporation, Represented by Its Deputy Manager (LEGAL), Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus M/s. Mas Hotel, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Managing Partner, K.M. Ibrahimkutty Mather High Court of Kerala
06-02-2020 Heera Lal Versus State High Court of Rajasthan
05-02-2020 Chhotey Lal @ Chottu Versus State High Court of Delhi
31-01-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
29-01-2020 Karnveer Singh Versus Panji Lal Damor High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-01-2020 M/s. Daimler Financial Services India Private Ltd., Chennai & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
28-01-2020 M/s. Daimler Financial Services India Private Ltd., Chennai & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
28-01-2020 Mohit Lal Ghosh Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-01-2020 M/s. Urban Umbrella Development And Management Company Through Its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Punjab V/S Pawan Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-01-2020 Priyantha Lal Ramanayake Versus The Hon. Attorney General Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
24-01-2020 Tata Sky Limited, Represented by its Chief Financial Controller, Sambasivan Ganesan, Chennai Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 Chuni Lal Versus Munshi Ram & Another Supreme Court of India
24-01-2020 M/s. DTT Financial Services (P) Ltd., Chennai, Represented by its Director, Usha Subramaniam Versus N. Uttam Kumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 Lal Mohammed Versus State (Nct of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India
22-01-2020 Seema Lal & Others V/S State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
21-01-2020 Kishan Lal Chadha @ Krishan Lal Chadha (Deceased) Versus Anup Chadha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Orissa Versus Achhey Lal High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-01-2020 Vivek Jha Versus Daimler Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
09-01-2020 M/s. KCP Limited, Rep. by its Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Chennai Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai Commissionerate-I, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 M/s. Grant Thornton India LLP., New Delhi Versus 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Formerly Known as Financial Technologies (India) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 Shyam Lal Jayaswal Versus Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
06-01-2020 Udhav Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station Sarangarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-01-2020 State Bank of India V/S Nand Lal Sokhal and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Jaipur
02-01-2020 Manori Lal & Another Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-12-2019 M/s. J.M. Financial Asset Management Ltd., Represented by it's Chief Executive Officer Bhanu Katoch Versus Channegowda & Others High Court of Karnataka
06-12-2019 Manik Lal Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-12-2019 State of Punjab Versus Kashmiri Lal @ Sheera High Court of Punjab and Haryana
03-12-2019 M/s. G.S. Enterprises & Another Versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-11-2019 Chumman Lal Sahu & Another Versus Gopal Ji Singh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-11-2019 Sham Lal Chabba Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-11-2019 Chaitu Lal Versus State of Uttarakhand Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) Versus Abhilash Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 The Management of M/s. Birla Te Versus Chunni Lal High Court of Delhi
15-11-2019 Sarabjit Kaur Versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
15-11-2019 State of H.P. Versus Rattan Singh & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
13-11-2019 Montu Lal Das Gupta V/S The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, to the Government of India, Ministry of Health, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
12-11-2019 Mathew K. Jacob Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary to The Government, Department of Financial Service (Banking Division), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
11-11-2019 The State of Maharashtra Versus Mohammed Ibrahim Lal Mohammed & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-11-2019 Avijit Mitra & Others Versus Shankar Lal Roy High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-11-2019 Parvati Mohta Through Legal Representatives Versus Mohan Lal Sukhadia University High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
05-11-2019 Heera Lal Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
04-11-2019 Bank of Baroda Versus Kameshwar Lal & Another Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad
04-11-2019 Shyambai Versus Shankar Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-10-2019 Joint Labour Commissioner & Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC