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



Rekha Dendor v/s Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dungarpur & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- SENIOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL1996PTC082386

Company & Directors' Information:- REKHA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24219TG2001PTC038144

    Civil Writ Petition No. 8390 of 2011

    Decided On, 14 October 2011

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

    For the Appellant: P.S. Chundawat, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2, Rajesh Joshi, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.8.2011 as passed in Election Petition No. 1/2010 whereby the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dungarpur has allowed the election petition filed by the respondent No. 2 questioning the election of the petitioner to the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gada Meratia essentially on the ground that as on the relevant date of filing the nomination i.e., 3.2.2010, the petitioner was not qualified to contest the election for her date of birth being 17.10.1991 and she having not reached 21 years of age as per the requirements of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

2. The petitioner contested the election petition while asserting that her date of birth was 22.4.1988; and she was duly qualified to contest the election in question.

After framing of the relevant issues, the parties led their evidence in which, in oral evidence AW-1 Smt. Jamna, AW-2 Smt. Leela, AW-3 Kushal Singh, AW-4 Shanker, AW-5 Khatu, AW-6 Kodarlal and AW-7 Smt. Jagdishwari Joshi were examined on behalf of the election-petitioner (respondent No. 2 herein) whereas NAW-1 Rekha, NAW-2 Rupa, NAW-3 Velji, NAW-4 Kamla Shanker, NAW-5 Ganga Sahaya Meena and NAW-6 Punamchand Kalal were examined on behalf of the present petitioner; and in documentary evidence, the respondent No. 2 produced the copies of the election result as Ex.1, the school certificate as Ex.2, the school admission register as Ex.3, and the voter-lists of village Bamaniyawara as Ex.4 and of village Mertiya as Ex.5 whereas the present petitioner produced the copies of the horoscope as Ex.A-1, the ration card as Ex.A-2, the election voters list as Ex.A-3, the birth certificate as Ex.A-4, and the school admission form, again marked as Ex.A-1.

3. After due appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court found the entries as made in the scholar's register (Ex.3) trustworthy of reliance and the defence as set up by the petitioner not worthy of credence; and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not completed 21 years of age as on the relevant date and was not qualified to contest the election. The learned trial Court, therefore, proceeded to accept the election petition and set aside the election of the petitioner but declined the prayer made by the respondent No. 2 for declaring herself elected. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the entire consideration of the learned trial Court has been from an altogether wrong angle and the learned trial Court has acted illegally in passing the order impugned and in setting aside the election of the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the trial Court has proceeded on the assumption that the election- petitioner had been able to establish the petitioner's date of birth as '17.10.1991' and for that matter, the learned trial Court has referred to a few aspects related with the so-called weakness of the case of the present petitioner and on that basis has accepted the case of the election-petitioner (respondent No. 2 herein). The learned counsel has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Tara Devi v. Smt.Sudesh Chaudhary, 1997 (2) RLR 141 and emphasized that the onus was heavy on the election petitioner to prove by cogent evidence that the date of birth of the petitioner was 17.10.1991 and mere production of the scholar register was not decisive of the matter. According to the learned counsel, even in relation to the said register (Ex.3), it has directly come in evidence that the entry regarding the date of birth of the petitioner was not made at the instance of the father or anybody else related with the petitioner and obviously, such an entry was made at the whims and wishes of the school staff that cannot be considered binding on the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidentiary value of the documents produced by the petitioner including the birth certificate (Ex.A-4) that has been issued in the regular course of administrative functions and that could not have been discarded. The learned counsel further submitted that the relevant entries in the electoral roll have also not been considered and the learned trial Court has proceeded rather on its own assumptions.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has duly supported the order impugned and submitted that with the positive evidence in the form of date of birth certificate issued by the school (Ex.2), the scholar's register (Ex.3), and further, with reference to the assembly election voter-lists (Ex.4 and Ex.5), the respondent No. 2 (election-petitioner) has been able to establish that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 17.10.1991; that she was not 21 years of age at the time of the election in question; and that she was not entitled to contest the election. The learned counsel further submitted that the present petitioner, apart from submitting some made-up documents in the form of horoscope etc., withheld the relevant documents like the mark-sheets admittedly issued by the school for which, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against her. It is also submitted that even from the ration card (Ex.A-2), as produced by the present petitioner, the learned trial Court has drawn the logical deduction that in any case, she had not completed 21 years of age at the time of the election in question. The learned counsel submitted that when the fact of the petitioner having taken admission in the school concerned is not in dispute, the entries as made in the scholar's register and other evidence related with the school are enough and cogent evidence establishing the relevant facts and when such facts have not been displaced with positive evidence by the petitioner, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in accepting the election petition. The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh, AIR 2005 SC 1868.

6. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction in this matter. The order as passed by the learned trial Court does not appear suffering from any illegality; the approach of the learned trial Court does not appear contrary to the applicable principles; and the findings do not appear suffering from any perversity.

7. A perusal of the order impugned with reference to the material on record makes it clear that the learned trial Court has entered into the appreciation and analysis of the evidence in accordance with law; and has precisely assigned the reasons for accepting the entries as made in the scholar register. The learned trial Court has also pointed out various other facts and factors showing that the petitioner has either withheld the relevant evidence or has produced such evidence that could not be relied upon nor could be taken as sufficient rebuttal of the evidence adduced by the election-petitioner. The alleged horoscope (Ex.A-1) has been found to be a made up document with the story about its preparation being unacceptable with reference to the age of the alleged author of the document as occurring in the statement of the father of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner did not produce the said author in evidence. Then, it has been noticed that the petitioner's name was not included in the voters lists of the year 2009 (Ex.4 and Ex.5). Even the ration card (Ex.A-2), prima facie, gave out the age of the petitioner below 21 years on the relevant date. The learned trial Court has also assigned cogent reasons for not relying on the birth-certificate (Ex.A-4) in proof of the date of birth of the petitioner when, admittedly, the same was got 1977 prepared after the election result and obviously, on the information supplied by or at the instance of the petitioner. In this regard, the learned trial Court has also indicated a significant fact that the petitioner's father Rupa (NAW-2) had admittedly been a member of the Panchayat in the past and asserted having given the information about the petitioner's birth in the Panchayat but no such record was produced from the Panchayat.

8. The learned trial Court has, inter alia, observed as under:

'LANGUAGE"

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the election petition could not have been accepted while relying upon the weakness of the evidence of the petitioner. The submission has its own shortcoming because the learned trial Court has not relied solely on the weakness of the case of the petitioner. The learned trial Court has taken a comprehensive view of the matter, has analysed the entire evidence on record, and has arrived at a specific finding after relying on the most reliable and cogent evidence in the form of the entries in the scholar register (Ex.3), made way back in the year 1995 when there was no question of anybody intentionally inserting a wrong entry therein qua the petitioner. in this context, it does appear relevant to notice that the date of birth of the petitioner was admittedly mentioned on the 'Mark-sheets issue' by the school but the same have been withheld by the petitioner. Similarly, the transfer certificate has also not been produced.

10. In Smt. Tara Devi's case (supra), while relying on the decision in Birad Mat Singhvi's case, (AIR 1988 SC 1796), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has noticed the law thus:

"An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding to the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of material on which the age was recorded."

In the case of Mohinder Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"12. On the contrary, the statement contained in the admission register of the school as to the age of an individual on information supplied to the school authorities by the father, guardian or a close relative is more authentic evidence under Section 32, Clause (5) unless it is established by unimpeachable contrary material to show that it is inherently improbable. The time of one's birth relates to the commencement of one's relationship by blood and a statement therefore of one's age made by a person having special means of knowledge, relates to the existence of such relationship as that referred to in Section 32 Clause (5).

13. As observed by this Court in Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, (1982) 2 SCC 202, ordinarily oral evidence can hardly be useful to determine the correct age of a person, and the question, therefore, would largely depend on the documents and the nature of their authenticity. Oral evidence may have utility if no documentary evidence is forthcoming. Even the horoscope cannot be reliable because it can be prepared at any time to suit the needs of a particular situation. Entries in the school register and admission form regarding date of birth constitute good proof of age. There is no legal requirement that the public or other official book should be kept only by a public officer and all that is required under Section 35 of the Evidence Act is that it should be regularly kept in discharge of official duty. In the instant case the entries in the school register were made antelitem motam.

14. Therefore, the school records have more probative value than a horoscope..........."

11. In application of the principles aforesaid, it is found that in the present case, the election-petitioner has produced the relevant documentary evidence and has examined the relevant person who was incharge of the school register i.e., the principal concerned (AW-7 Smt. Jagdishwari joshi). The arguments which have been made with reference to her testimony that all the entries were not made by her or that father of the petitioner did not give out the date of birth as mentioned, do not make out a case for interference when the statement of AW-7 is read as a whole and is appreciated with reference to the other evidence available on record. It is but apparent that in the year 1995, the petitioner was indeed admitted in the Government Primary School, Bamaniyawara. The principal of the school concerned has pointed out that the entry regarding date of birth was

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

made on the information given by guardian. With such primary evidence being available on record, the onus was on the petitioner, if she wanted to displace the facts available from such evidence, to prove otherwise by way of cogent admissible evidence. The present petitioner has failed to displace the facts established by the election-petitioner by cogent and convincing evidence; and then, even the deductions available from the evidence adduced by the petitioner rather run counter to the case set, up by her. Moreover, the petitioner has withheld the relevant evidence that ought to be in her in possession like the marks-sheets issued by the school concerned. 12. In the cumulative effect of the primary evidence led by the respondent No. 2, of the inferences available from the evidence as adduced by the petitioner, and of adverse inference against the petitioner for withholding the relevant evidence, the findings of fact as reached by the learned trial Court about the date of birth and about the age of the petitioner do not appear suffering from any illegality or perversity. 13. In an overall analysis, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. Consequently and as a result of the aforesaid, the petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-07-2020 Nasir @ Nasir Ulla Khan & Another Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Senior Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
30-06-2020 Parasnath Tiwari Versus Senior Post Master, Post Office Head Office, Uttar Pradesh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 M.P. Satheesan, Senior Manager (Retired), Kannur District Co-Operative Bank, Kannur Versus The Kannur District Co-Operative Bank, Represented by General Manager, Kannur & Others High Court of Kerala
19-06-2020 Laxmi Singh & Others Versus Rekha Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
17-06-2020 S. Selvam Versus The Senior Manager – HRD Air India Limited, (Now known as National Aviation Company of India Limited), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-06-2020 Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Versus State by Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
02-06-2020 K. Saravanakumar Versus The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-05-2020 The Manager, Wallardie Estate, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., Vandiperiyar, Represented by Senior Manager (Legal), Sumith Babu Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
21-04-2020 For the Appellants: Amit Saxena (Senior Advocate) assisted by Abhishek Srivastava, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ajit Kumar, Punit Khare, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-03-2020 Dr. A.E. Chelliah, Senior Advocate Versus The Chairman & Members of the Bar Council of Tamizh Naadu & Puducherry Represented by its Secretary High Court Complex, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-03-2020 R. Raghavan, Partner of Dinamalar Group, Dinamalar (RF) New Standard Press Annex, Trichy & Others Versus Educomp Solutions Ltd, Through its Senior Manager Nithish Kumar & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-03-2020 The Senior General Manager, Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project Ministry of Defence, Trichy Versus The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep. By its Presiding Officer, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division) Senior Area Manager, West Bengal Versus Biswanath Adhikary & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, Southern Railway, Chennai Versus G. Bharathi High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Dr.(Mrs) Sania Akhtar, Working as Principal Director (Senior Principal Scientist), Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology SARP, Bangalore Versus The Director General, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers, Guindy, Chennai & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
02-03-2020 K.P. Manoj, Senior Accounts Officer, O/O. The Accountant General (A ANS E) Kerala, Ernakulam Branch Versus The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
27-02-2020 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Represented by its Senior Manager(RS) & Power Agent, S. Gunasekaran Versus V. Sudhakar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-02-2020 Batliboi Renewable Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Batliboi EnXco Pvt. Ltd.,) Represented by Rajiv, Senior Manager (Accounts) Versus M/s. Sri Vinayaga Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor R. Ganesan High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 P. Saju, Senior Grade Printer, Government Central Press, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 M/s. Shiv Mahadev Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director H. Sahadevram Choudhary, Chennai Versus The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Rekha Versus State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
11-02-2020 The Chief Senior Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Thiruvananthapuram Versus Valsala Gopinathan, ‘Sreevalsam', Kottooli Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
10-02-2020 Muthoot Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Senior Manager (Business Development), Mumbai V/S State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Rekha Chaturvedi & Another Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 Dipak Chandra Dhar, Senior Trackman, Under Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway, Silchar Versus Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-02-2020 S. Prasanna Raj V/S The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division) Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 Dr. G.K. Aggarwal, Senior Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon Versus Lalit Sayal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-02-2020 M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises represented by its Proprietor R. Devika Versus The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Commercial Branch, Park Town Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 Rekha & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
31-01-2020 Rekha Nellypally Versus CPIO: Union Bank of India Central Information Commission
30-01-2020 M/s. Alfred Berg & Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Kamalesh K Jain & Another Versus TamilNadu State Rep by Senior Drugs Inspector, Villupuram Range I/c Cuddalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 M/s. Ramkrishna Forgings Limited registered office at Ramkrishna Chambers, Kolkata and its works at Baliguma, Kolabira, Seraikela Kharswan through its Senior General Manager (Finance), Rahul Kumar Bagaria & Others V/S The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Finance Department, Project Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
28-01-2020 Director Directorate of Welfare Disabled & Senior Citizens, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru & Others Versus Yogamurthy & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Senior Divisional Manager, Chandigarh Versus Palagiri Kumari & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Senior Divisional Manager, Chandigarh Versus Palagiri Kumari & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 M/s. URC Construction (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory V. Ganesan, Manager Versus M/s. Airport Authority of India, Rep. by its Senior Manager Engg (C) Project Division - IV, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 M/s. Premier Cotton Textiles rep. by its Senior Manager, S. Vaidyanathan & Others Versus The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Coimbatore Commissionerate, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-01-2020 M/s. Allied Enterprises Versus Rekha Basu & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-01-2020 Wayne Burt Petro Chemicals Private Limited, Rep.by its Senior Manager Finance, V.K. Sivasubramanian & Another Versus The Registrar of Companies, Ministry of corporate affairs, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Rekha Sankhla Versus Ranveer Singh Sankhla High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
07-01-2020 Wayne Burt Petro Chemicals Private Limited, Rep. by its Senior Manager-Finance V.K. Sivasubramanian, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur & Another Versus M/s. Cetex Petro Chemicals Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sivagnanam Govindasamy Ilanahai, having its registered office at Manali, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 The Management, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Rep.by through its Senior Regional Manager Versus The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Dasildar Nagar, Anna Nagar, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-12-2019 M/s. Serene Kshetra Owner's Association, Rep. by its Secretary Shekhar Murthy, having office at Natthapettai, Kanchipuram Versus M/s. Serene Senior Care Private Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Mohit Nirula, Vandaloor, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 DAV Public School Versus The Senior Manager, Indian Bank, Midnapur Branch & Others Supreme Court of India
13-12-2019 GE T & D India Limited, Rep. by Senior Manager-Indirect Taxes, S. Sivaramakrishnan Versus Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 Viswanathan, Senior Manager, PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd., (Formerly known as MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd.), Kollam & Another Versus Myrtle Maxwell, Bethan Ville Mandakkal West, Kollam Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
06-12-2019 V. Devaki & Others Versus The Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C.of India, Vellore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 Rekha Basfore, Kamrup (M) Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary To the Govt. of India, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
22-11-2019 Shama G. Bothe, Director of Chinkara Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus State of Goa, Through the Senior Inspector of Police & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
22-11-2019 The Management of Central Bank of India, Represented by Mayank Dinesh Shah, its Senior Regional Manager, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2019 The State of Maharashtra Versus Rekha Ramakant Rahalkar High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-11-2019 Rekha Murarka Versus The State of West Bengal & Another Supreme Court of India
20-11-2019 Rekha Murarka V/S The State of West Bengal and Others. Supreme Court of India
19-11-2019 Rekha Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-11-2019 A.M. Samiulla Versus State of Karnataka Represented by Senior Labour Inspector High Court of Karnataka
08-11-2019 Hindustan Unilver Limited, Represented by its Senior Legal Executive, Puducherry Versus The Presiding Officer, Pondicherry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-11-2019 Senior Bhosale Estate(Huf) Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Supreme Court of India
01-11-2019 Mukesh Versus Rekha @ Rukmani High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
23-10-2019 The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another Versus Ripan Chandra Kar West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
17-10-2019 K.P.L. International Limited, Represented by it Senior Vice President, R.P. Mundra Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Saidapet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-10-2019 The Senior Manager-HRD, Air India Ltd., (Now Known as National Aviation Company of India Limited), Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-10-2019 Play Games 24x7 Private Limited, Malad(W), Mumbai, Represented by Its Senior Vice-President-Finance, Legal & Compliance & Authorized Signatory Malay Kumar Shukla Versus K. Ramachandran, Perinthalmanna & Another High Court of Kerala
10-10-2019 C. Mathew Ignitious, Senior Manager (Emp 40614), The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited Thrissur Versus The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Represented by Its Managing Director, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
03-10-2019 The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Egmore, Chennai Versus The Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-09-2019 Imran Latif Shirgawkar Versus Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Through – Senior Intelligence Officer & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-09-2019 Central bank of India, A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Act IV of 1970 & having its Head office at Chandarmukhi, Mumbai & a branch inter alia at Coonoor, Rep. by its Senior Manager Versus Shanthi Rajkumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2019 Managing Committee, Vidya Bhawan Girls Senior Secondary School & Another Versus Director of Education & Others High Court of Delhi
11-09-2019 Anil Kumar Goel Versus Rekha Goel & Another High Court of Delhi
11-09-2019 Rekha Versus Medical Council of India High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2019 Rekha Bajaj Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-09-2019 M/s. AE & E Chennai Works (P) Ltd., Represented by its Senior Manager, H.R.I.R, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2019 The Senior Manager, United Bank of India Versus Saidul Islam & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-08-2019 R. Sarangapani Versus The Senior Regional Manager, The Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Cuddallore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2019 Nagammal Versus The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Trichy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-08-2019 Robo Silicon Ltd., Rep. by Senior Manager (Legal), Hyderabad Versus State of Karnataka, Department of Mines & Geology, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
16-08-2019 Sangeeta Santosh Kadam Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Senior Inspector of Police & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-08-2019 Rekha Devi Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
02-08-2019 Senior Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Belgaum Divisional Office, Belgaum (Karnataka) & Another Versus Keyur & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
31-07-2019 Rekha Versus Union of India, It's General Manager In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
31-07-2019 Lt. Col. Gurmeet Singh Versus Rekha Rathi High Court of Rajasthan
31-07-2019 Dr. Rekha Rathi Versus Lt. Col. Gurmeet Singh High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
29-07-2019 M/s. Mangesh Mahalaxmi Traders, Shiribeedu, Rep. by its Proprietor, Ramachandra Kidiyoor Versus The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Udupi & Another High Court of Karnataka
29-07-2019 Rekha Murarka V/S The State of West Bengal and Others. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-07-2019 Rekha Murarka Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-07-2019 Senior Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., East Sikkim Versus Managing Director, Sikkim Power Development Co. Ltd. (SPDCL), East Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
24-07-2019 M/s. Premier Cotton Textiles, represented by its Senior Manager, S. Vaidyanathan, Poolankinar Post, Udumalpet Versus The Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Coimbatore Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-07-2019 Senior State Medical Commissioner, ESIC Versus Charanjit Kaur & Others Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
05-07-2019 Allahabd Bank Through Its Senior Manager, Anupam Kumar, Branch At Behajam Tehsil Mitauli Pargana & District-Lakhimpur Kheri Uttar Pradesh Versus Ajay Kumar & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-07-2019 Panvelli Rekha Versus Bollanaboina Kondal Yadav High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-06-2019 The Branch Manager, Future General India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by Senior Manager & Others Versus S.L. Varsha & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
28-06-2019 Tamil Nadu Football Association Versus Pennar Senior FC. Rep. by its Secretary K. Tamilselvan, Krishnagiri & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-06-2019 For the Appellants: K.D. Chatterji, Senior Advocate, Amlesh Kumar Verma, Ankit Katriar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Subodh Kr. Jha, Pranav Kr. Jha, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Patna
25-06-2019 Mohandas Versus Maintenance Tribunal Under The Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act (Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad) & Others High Court of Kerala
18-06-2019 Dr. Justice K. Bhakthavatsala Versus Senior Accounts Officer Principal Accountant General (A & E) Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
18-06-2019 Kuldeep Singh & Others Versus Rekha High Court of Madhya Pradesh
14-06-2019 Senior Superintendent of Police Versus Shanti Devi & Another High Court of Uttarakhand
13-06-2019 Shycy Santhosh & Another Versus HDFC Housing Finance, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Senior Manager, & Another High Court of Kerala
10-06-2019 M/s. Tarapore & Co., Dhun Building, Chennai, Rep. by its Partner, N. Radhakrishnan Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by Senior Divisional Manager, Anna Salai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2019 Moona Abousher Versus M/s. Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Senior Manager K. Rajesh Pai, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2019 G. Rekha & Others Versus V. Ramachandra Reddy & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana