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



Ravi Setia v/s Madan Lal & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- MADAN & COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TN1981PLC008556

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

Company & Directors' Information:- T MADAN & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1950PTC018749

Company & Directors' Information:- RAVI AND COMPANY LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U74300JK1997PLC001627

    Civil Appeal No. 2837 of 2011

    Decided On, 04 October 2019

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

    For the Appellant: Amit Anand Tiwari, Mary Mitzy, Harshal Gupta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ranjit Thomas, Sr. Advocate, Shashi Juneja, V.N. Raghupathy, Mohit Singh, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Navin Sinha, J.

The plaintiff assails correctness of the order allowing the second appeal of the defendants. By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the concurrent orders of the courts below decreeing the plaintiffs suit for specific performance.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 10.11.1989 with regard to 2/3rd of the lands owned by defendants 1 and 2 as Defendant No. 3 declined to sign the agreement. Rs. 50,000/- was paid as earnest money and the balance consideration of Rs. 3,10,490/- was to be paid at the time of execution. The agreement provided for execution of the sale deed on or before 30.04.1990. The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale documents on 30.04.1990, but defendant nos. 1 and 2 did not appear for execution. During the pendency of the proceedings, defendant nos. 1 and 2 sold the lands to defendant nos. 4 to 7 by three separate sale deeds dated 16.01.1991. The first appeal by the defendants was dismissed holding that defendant nos. 4 to 7 were not bonafide purchasers. Thus, the present appeal.

3. Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, submitted that the High Court in a second appeal ought not to have interfered with a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations under the agreement. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 had failed to appear before the Sub-Registrar for execution on 30.04.1990. The plaintiff never received the purported notices from defendant nos.1 and 2 dated 28.05.1990 and 12.06.1990 requiring the plaintiff to execute the sale deed on 25.06.1990. The subsequent sale to defendants 4 to 7 has been held to be not bonafide, but a sham transaction. The plaintiff had been granted extension of time for deposit of the balance consideration by the Trial Court till the disposal of the first appeal. The balance consideration was deposited after decision in the First Appeal. In the alternative, a submission was made that if the appeal is not to be allowed, defendants 1 and 2 may be directed to pay the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the plaintiff comprising the earnest money plus damages as claimed in the suit.

4. Shri Ranjit Thomas, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents, submitted that the plaintiff had failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform its obligations under the agreement. The defendants were not put on notice for appearance before the Sub-Registrar on 30.04.1990. The notices dated 28.05.1990 and 12.06.1990 were sent by defendants 1 and 2 through registered post at the correct residential address of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not respond to the same because he did not have the capacity to perform hisobligations under the agreement and failed to deposit the balance consideration within the two months' time granted by the Trial Court on 01.06.1994. The application for extension of time made after expiry of the time prescribed is sufficient evidence for the incapacity of the plaintiff to perform his obligations demonstrating readiness and willingness. The High Court in second appeal was empowered to set aside concurrent findings of facts if they were perverse.

5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and have also been taken through the orders under appeal. Defendants nos. 1 to 3 owned 61 karnals 17 marlas of lands in Village Gumjal, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozpur. Defendant no.3 having refused to sign the agreement for sale dated 10.11.1989, the plaintiff instituted a suit for enforcement of the agreement with regard to the 2/3rd share of defendants 1 and 2. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.04.1990. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court arrived at the finding of readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiff solely on basis of a certificate produced by them from the Sub-Registrar confirming their presence before him on 30.04.1990 for execution. Apart from the same, no further evidence was led by the plaintiff to demonstrate readiness and willingness including the continuous capacity for discharge of the balance consideration. The plaintiff in its application before the Sub-Registrar stated that he had required defendants 1 and 2 to be present for registration on 25.06.1990. No evidence whatsoever has been led by the plaintiff in support of the same. We are of the considered opinion that in the circumstances the certificate from the office of the Sub-Registrar cannot be construed as conclusive evidence to non-suit defendants 1 and 2. The findings to that effect are therefore held to be unsustainable.

6. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 by registered notices dated 28.05.1990 and 12.06.1990 required the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed by 25.06.1990. The plaintiff does not dispute that the communication was properly addressed and sent through registered acknowledgement due. If it was returned back with the endorsement that the plaintiff was not available at his home, defendants 1 and 2 were not required to do anything further. If the plaintiff was of the opinion that the endorsement was wrong, it was for him to have contended so and led necessary evidence in this regard. The Trial Court rightly did not disbelieve defendants 1 and 2, but without returning any finding in that regard preferred to rely on the unsubstantiated claim of the plaintiff of having been present before the Sub-Registrar on 30.04.1990. The said finding is also held to be unsustainable.

7. Under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short "the Act"), there are certain grounds which bar the relief of specific performance of the contract. This section, insofar it is relevant, is as under:

"16. Personal bars to relief. Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person

(a)-(b) * * *

(c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant."

8. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 01.06.1994 and granted time to the plaintiff for deposit of the balance consideration within two months from 01.06.1994, i.e. by 31.07.1994. The plaintiff offered no explanation whatsoever for the failure to comply the direction. After expiry of the time granted for deposit, on 02.08.1994 the plaintiff filed an application before the Trial Court that in view of the pendency of the First Appeal preferred by defendants, the time for deposit may be extended as otherwise the amount would lie in the bank without interest. On 02.08.1994 itself, the time for deposit was extended till disposal of the First Appeal. The defendants' challenge to the ex-parte order was unsuccessful on technical grounds.

9. There can be no straight jacket formula with regard to readiness and willingness. It will have to be construed in the facts and circumstances of each case in the light of all attending facts and circumstances. We are of the considered opinion, that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the failure of the plaintiff to offer any explanation why the balance consideration was not deposited within the time granted, the filing of the application for extension of time after expiry of the prescribed period coupled with the frivolousness of the grounds taken in the application for extension that the money would lie in the bank without earning interest, are all but evidence of incapacity on part of the plaintiff to perform his obligations under the agreement and reflective of lack of readiness and willingness. He preferred to wait and abide by the gamble of a favourable decision in the first appeal.

10. The grant of relief for specific performance under Section 16 (1)(c) of the Act is a discretionary and equitable relief. Under Section 16 (1)(c), the plaintiff has to demonstrate readiness and willingness throughout to perform his obligations under the contract. The plea that the amount would lie in the bank without interest is unfounded and contrary to normal banking practice. To our mind, this is sufficient evidence of the incapacity or lack of readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiff to perform his obligations. Undoubtedly, the time for deposit could be extended under Section 28 of the Act. But the mere extension of time for deposit does not absolve the plaintiff of his obligation to demonstrate readiness and willingness coupled with special circumstances beyond his control to seek such extension. The plaintiff did not aver in the application that he was ready and willing to perform his obligations and was prevented from any special circumstances from doing so. The pendency of an appeal by the defendant did not preclude the plaintiff from depositing the amount in proof of his readiness and willingness. Readiness has been interpreted as capacity for discharge of obligations with regard to payment. The High Court has rightly observed that there was no stay by the Appellate Court of the decree under appeal to justify non-deposit during the pendency of the appeal. The grant of extension of time cannot ipso facto be construed as otherwise demonstrating readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was required to plead sufficient, substantial and cogent grounds to seek extension of time for deposit because otherwise it becomes a question of his conduct along with all other attendant surrounding circumstances in the facts of the case. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the High Court concluding that the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances was not ready and willing to perform his obligations.

11. In V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar Firm vs. C. Alagappan, (1999) 4 SCC 702, it was observed as follows:

"17. The agreement of sale was entered into as far back on 16-2-1980, about 19 years ago. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the balance amount of consideration could not be deposited within the time granted by the Court......Merely because a suit is filed within the prescribed period of limitation does not absolve the vendee-plaintiff from showing as to whether he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and if there was non-performance, was that on account of any obstacle put by the vendor or otherwise. Provisions to grant specific performance of an agreement are quite stringent. Equitable considerations come into play. The court has to see all the attendant circumstances including if the vendee has conducted himself in a reasonable manner under the contract of sale..... It is not the case of the respondent decree-holders that on account of any fault on the part of the vendor judgment-debtor, the amount could not be deposited as per the decree......That apart, no explanation whatsoever is coming from the respondent decree-holders as to why they did not pay the balance amount of consideration.....Equity demands that discretion be not exercised in favour of the respondent decree-holders and no extension of time be granted to them to comply with the decree."

12. In our opinion, had the plaintiff deposited the amount after expiry of the time but during the pendency of the appeal, as held in Ramankutty Guptan vs. Avara, (1994) 2 SCC 642, entirely different considerations may have arisen. The judgment in any event is based on its own peculiar facts and circumstances.

13. In Umabai and Another vs. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (Dead) by Lrs. and Another, (2005) 6 SCC 243, it has been observed as follows :

"30. It is now well settled that the conduct of the parties, with a view to arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff-defendants were all along and still are ready and willing to perform their part of contract as is mandatorily required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act must be determined having regard to the entire attending circumstances. A bare averment in the plaint or a statement made in the examination-in-chief would not suffice. The conduct of the plaintiff-defendants must be judged having regard to the entirety of the pleadings as also the evidence brought on records."

14. According to normal human prudence, land price escalates over time. Unless it be a situation of a distress sale, no land owner will sell his land for a lesser price than what may have been recorded in an agreement for sale. The fact that the defendants nos. 1 and 2 subsequently sold the land on 16.01.1991 to defendants nos. 4 to 7 at a lesser price, due to personal necessity, also mitigates against the plea of the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations under the contract.

15. There can be no quarrel with the well settled proposition of law that in a second appeal, the High Court ought not to enter into reappreciation of evidence to arrive at new findings, except on pure questions of law. But if the findings are perverse, based on complete misappreciation or erroneous consideration of evidence, and the failure to consider relevant evidence, it becomes a question of law. In Dilbagrai Punjabi vs. Sharad Chandra, 1988 Supp SCC 710, it was observed as follows:

"5.....The High Court was right in pointing out t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

hat the courts below had seriously erred in not considering the entire evidence on the record including the aforesaid documents. It is true that the High Court while hearing the appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and reverse the conclusion reached by the first appellate court, but at the same time its power to interfere with the finding cannot be denied if when the lower appellate court decides an issue of fact a substantial question of law arises. The court is under a duty to examine the entire relevant evidence on record and if it refuses to consider important evidence having direct bearing on the disputed issue and the error which arises is of a magnitude that it gives birth to a substantial question of law, the High Court is fully authorised to set aside the finding...." 16. In view of the discussion, we arrive at the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform its obligations under the agreement for sale. We are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present appeal. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent is not entitled to retain the earnest money and it shall be refunded to the appellant without interest within a period of one month failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 7 per cent. 17. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

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
08-10-2020 Ravi Agarwal Versus M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, C.D. Kishore High Court of Karnataka
29-09-2020 Laddu Lal Mahto Versus Managing Director, Tata Motors Limited, Bihar & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-09-2020 Ravi Dixit Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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
04-09-2020 K. Ravi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Labour & Employment, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 M. Ravi & Others Versus State by Vishwanathapura P.S., Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
01-09-2020 Vazhuvoor Ravi Versus The State of TamilNadu, Rep.by the Chief Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 Chhotey Lal Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-08-2020 L. Madan @ Katu Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
18-08-2020 Lal Chand Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
13-08-2020 Ravi Raman Versus Arul Viswanathan High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
05-08-2020 Ravi Versus State of Anekal Police Station Anekal, Represented by S.P.P., Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
17-07-2020 Pyare Lal Versus State of Haryana Supreme Court of India
10-07-2020 Ravi Pratap Singh @ Tinku Singh Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
02-07-2020 Ravi Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
02-07-2020 Sukhwinder Mall Alias Ravi Versus State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
30-06-2020 Sindhu. S. Lal Versus Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor & Others High Court of Kerala
29-06-2020 Chirag Madan Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
29-06-2020 Mohan Lal Jain Versus Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Another High Court of Delhi
26-06-2020 Bhura @ Ravi Chaudhari Versus The State of M.P. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
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
23-06-2020 Ravi Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
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
18-06-2020 Ravi Parameswara Raja Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Chief Secretary, Secretariat Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
18-06-2020 Ravi @ P. Ramakrishna Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by Learned State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
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
01-06-2020 Ravi Omprakash Balotiya Through Balotiya Omprakash Krishnaji Versus The Commissioner of Police High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
27-05-2020 P. Ravi Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by, State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
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
19-05-2020 Ravi Ranjan Giri & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
13-05-2020 Manish Madan Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
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
08-05-2020 Pandurang Versus Ravi High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
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
07-04-2020 B. Ravi Kumar Reddy & Another Versus Bhagyamma & Others High Court of Karnataka
30-03-2020 M.L. Ravi Versus Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-03-2020 Babu Lal & Others Versus Para Devi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
23-03-2020 State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Ravi Kumar High Court of Himachal Pradesh
18-03-2020 Ravi Versus Shanmughan & Another High Court of Kerala
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 Ravi Krishanan Mudaliyar Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-03-2020 Ram Dulari & Another Versus Ram Lal & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
10-03-2020 Banoth Ravi Versus State of Telangana, rep. Public Prosecutor High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-03-2020 Morpheus Developers Private Ltd V/S Ravi Ranjan and Others. NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
02-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Arya & Others Versus Ravi Kumar Arya & Others Supreme Court of India
02-03-2020 K. Ravi Versus The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-02-2020 Lal Chand Versus State of H.P. High Court of Himachal Pradesh
28-02-2020 Sharmila Ravi Kumar Versus Chairman & Managing Director Andhra Bank, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-02-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-02-2020 Aman Khattar Versus Jawahar Lal High Court of Delhi
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 Smriti Madan Kansagra Versus Perry Kansagra High Court of Delhi
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
14-02-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Manager, Delhi Versus Chaman Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 Ravi Developments, Mumbai & Others Versus Manish D. Menghani National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Jhanak Lal V/S State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Chattisgarh
13-02-2020 Mani Kant Ravi & Others Versus Coal India Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
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
12-02-2020 Ravi Rathi & Another Versus M/s Aditya Construction Company (India) Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its Director, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
11-02-2020 Kanhaiya Lal Versus Lala Ram & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-02-2020 Ravi Raj & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Heera Lal Versus State High Court of Rajasthan
05-02-2020 Chhotey Lal @ Chottu Versus State High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 Ravi Bansal Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
04-02-2020 Madan Barman Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-01-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
30-01-2020 The State of Madhya Pradesh And Another V/S Ravi @ Toli Malviya & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
29-01-2020 Karnveer Singh Versus Panji Lal Damor High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-01-2020 Jayanthi G. Ravi Versus M/s. Chemizol Additives Pvt. Ltd. Karnataka National Company Law Tribunal Bengaluru
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
27-01-2020 Khushru Dorab Madan Versus Union of India Represented by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 Lal Mohammed Versus State (Nct of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
24-01-2020 K. Ravi Kumar Versus State of Telangana & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-01-2020 Chuni Lal Versus Munshi Ram & Another Supreme Court of India
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
20-01-2020 Madan Mohan Pandey Versus Union of India High Court of Jharkhand
20-01-2020 S.N. Ravi Versus Geethalakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Orissa Versus Achhey Lal High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-01-2020 Rattan Lal Bharadwaj Versus Magma Financial Corporation Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-01-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Ravi Ramlal Pardeshi & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-01-2020 Ravi Shankar J. Bomanwar & Others V/S Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow & Others Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur