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



S.K. Shivakumar, Junior attendant, Central Library, IIT Madras v/s The Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- D TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403MH2015PTC268305

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIAN CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TN1946PTC000988

Company & Directors' Information:- T & C TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC074144

    W.P.No. 50357 of 2006

    Decided On, 28 March 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

    For the Petitioner: R. Suriyaprakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, P. Neelakantan, R4, S.N. Ravichandran, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari cum Mandamus, calling for the records relevant to the Order in No.F.Admn/11/B-1/2006/484 dated 19.12.2006 passed by the First Respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary and against the Rule of law and natural justice and thereby direct the Respondents to continue the service of the Petitioner from 19.12.2006 and pay back all the services benefits to the Petitioner.)

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari cum Mandamus to quash the order dated 19.12.2006 of the First Respondent and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to continue the service of the Petitioner from 19.12.2006 with all attendant benefits.

2. The salient facts of the case are as set out herein. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner married K.Neelaveni/the 4th Respondent herein on 03.09.1997 and that the marriage was solemnized at Dr.Ambedkar Thirumana Mandapam, Tambaram. Admittedly, the petitioner and his wife lived together for a short period after the marriage and they are now residing separately. It appears that the wife of the Petitioner filed a complaint with Respondents 1 to 3 and called upon them to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner because he had unlawfully married another person, namely, Bharathi, through whom he had a child. In view of the fact that no action was taken on the complaint initially, the 4th Respondent filed W.P.No.21531 of 2003 before this Court and this Court by order dated 20.08.2003 directed the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct an enquiry in accordance with the law. During the first enquiry, the 4th Respondent produced a copy of statement allegedly made by people from Kilsirupakkam Village to prove the bigamous marriage. But the enquiry officer held that in view of the absence of original documents and the oral evidence of the persons who said that the Petitioner married the said Bharathi, the charges were not proved.

3. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s wife(4th respondent herein) filed a second Writ Petition in W.P.No.27560 of 2004 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 22.03.2005, directed the Respondents 1 to 3 to consider all the documents produced by the Petitioner, provide sufficient opportunity to both parties and decide the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of request.

4. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry officer was appointed and a charge memo dated 06.10.2006 was issued to the Petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry was held. It is the admitted position that the Petitioner and 4th Respondent participated in the said enquiry. Pursuant to the said enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 22.05.2006. From the report of the Enquiry Officer, it is clear that the Enquiry Officer examined the original voter’s list for the year 2004 and the certified copy of the birth certificate. He also called for an explanation from the Petitioner vide memorandum dated 28.11.2005 and the Petitioner submitted his explanation vide letter dated 12.12.2005. It is also clear that, thereafter, the enquiry was held on 09.03.2006 and 21.03.2006 when both the Petitioner and the 4th Respondent let in oral evidence. The Petitioner herein submitted the birth certificate at page 17 of the typed set of papers of the Petitioner and the electoral card and this was taken into consideration. After considering the documents and oral evidence submitted by both parties, the Enquiry Officer held as under:

(i) Voter list:In the voter’s list submitted by Mrs.Neelaveni, which was published on 25.02.2004, one Ms.Barathi is shown as W/o.Sivakumar with the address 9, Agesthiyar Street, Tambaram 600 045. Sri.Sivakumar, in his reply has stated that he has sent an objection letter to the Electoral authorities for deletion of the name of Ms.Barathi which was included in the list as his wife, apparently by Mrs.Neelaveni by forgery. Though he had produced a latest electoral card dated 20.03.2005, which does not contain the name of Ms.Barathi, he has not produced the revised electoral roll deleting Barathi’s name. Hence according to the available evidences it is understood that Sri Sivakumar has got married Ms.Barathi.

(ii) Birth Certificate: Further, the certified copy of the birth certificate produced by Mrs.Neelaveni also reveals that a female child was born on 03.07.2002 to Mr.Sivakumar and Mrs.Barathi whose address is given as ‘Kizhsirupakkam, Chengam Taluk.”

5. The Enquiry Officer’s report was forwarded to the Petitioner and the Petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation thereto if any. Accordingly, the Petitioner by letter dated 23.10.2006 submitted his further explanation. Upon considering the further explanation of the Petitioner, by order dated 19.12.2006, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the finding of the enquiry officer and dismissed the Petitioner from service under Statutes 13(9)(b)(vii) of IIT Act with immediate effect for the serious misconduct of bigamy.6. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as a Helper in the First Respondent Institute and that, thereafter, he became a Junior Attendant at the Central Library of the First Respondent. He further submitted that after the first enquiry proceedings, the charges were dropped as not proved. He invited the attention of this Court to the birth certificate at Page Nos.16 and 17 of the typed set and contended that the birth certificate at Page No.16 had been obtained and produced by the 4th Respondent and that this document is false because it reflects the permanent address of the Petitioner as Tambaram, Chennai and that the correct birth certificate is produced at Page No.17 of the typed set which shows the address as Kizhsirupakkam, Chengam Vattam. He also invited the attention of the Court to the Voter’s list produced by the 4th Respondent, which is at Page Nos.46 and 47 of the typed set of papers. He contended that this Voter list was false and that it wrongly mentioned Bharathi as his wife. Accordingly, he submitted that he issued a representation to the Chief Election Officer on 25.06.2004 and a revised voter list was issued in 2006 which is at Page Nos.68 to 71 of the typed set of papers. He pointed out that, as per this voter list, his name is mentioned in Serial No.44 whereas the name of Bharathi, the alleged second wife is not mentioned. He, thereafter, invited the attention of the Court to the second enquiry report and submitted that the enquiry officer incorrectly concluded that he had not produced the revised electoral roll deleting Bharathi’s name but merely produced the latest electoral card dated 20.03.2005 which does not contain the name of Bharathi. Therefore, it is the contention of the Petitioner that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated and liable to be interfered with by this Court.

7. In response, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the principles of natural justice have been duly followed in this case. He further submitted that it is the admitted position that the charge memo was served on the Petitioner, that the Petitioner attended the enquiry and was given an opportunity to provide an explanation and produce documents in support of his case. He also invited the attention of the Court to the Impugned Order of the Disciplinary Authority which records that the copy of the enquiry report was communicated to the Petitioner and his explanation was called for. He further contended that it also records that the Disciplinary Authority perused the records and personally heard the Petitioner on 29.11.2006. He further pointed out that the Disciplinary Authority also took into consideration the photo copy of the voter’s list without the said Bharathi’s name but, on examining the same, the Disciplinary Authority concluded that it does not prove that the Petitioner did not marry Bharathi. On the above basis, he submitted that the enquiry was duly conducted, adequate opportunity was provided to the Petitioner and that the Disciplinary Authority also applied its mind independently before imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the Petitioner.

8. In addition, the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 handed over the relevant Rules of the First Respondent institute and pointed out that there is a provision for appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, he submitted that the Petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy. He also produced the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C.CHATURVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 and in particular, he invited the attention of the Court to Paragraph 12 thereof wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.”

9. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent submitted that upon discovery of the fact that the Petitioner had an illegal second marriage, the 4th Respondent was constrained to make a complaint to the First Respondent and that complaint was not initially acted upon. Therefore, the 4th Respondent was constrained to file W.P.No.21531 of 2003 and that the enquiry was conducted pursuant to the orders passed therein. He also pointed out that the birth certificate at Page Nos.16 and 17 of the typed set reflect the name of the father of the child as Sivakumar and that of the mother as Bharathi. Both the documents also show the place of birth as Kizhsirupakkam, which is the maternal home of the said Bharathi. Therefore, he submitted that the birth certificate at Page No.17 of the typed set of papers does not advance the case of the Petitioner. He also invited the attention of the Court to the second Writ Petition, namely, W.P.No.27560 of 2004 whereby this Court, by Order dated 22.03.2005, directed the First Respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry after considering the documents produced by the Petitioner and provide adequate opportunity to both parties. He, thereafter, invited the attention of the Court to the electoral list submitted by the 4th Respondent at the enquiry and specifically pointed out that entries 612 to 617 at Page No.47 relate to the family members of the Petitioner, including the second wife, namely, Bharathi and that these public documents cannot be said to be forged especially when all the details are correct. He also invited the attention of the Court to the Additional typed set of papers and pointed out as to how the Petitioner had failed to pay maintenance, including for the child born through the 4th Respondent, and that the 4th Respondent had to initiate legal proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the criminal complaint with regard to bigamy is still pending adjudication. Therefore, he submitted that the Writ Petition should be dismissed.

10. By way of rejoinder submissions, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that upon submission of the birth certificate at Page No.17 and the revised electoral list for the year 2006, the burden of proof shifted to the 4th Respondent and that the said Respondent did not discharge the burden.

11. The affidavit, counter affidavit, documents and oral submissions of both parties were considered carefully.

12. It is not disputed that the principles of natural justice were duly complied with while conducting the enquiry. The Petitioner admittedly participated in the enquiry, he was examined personally and the documents submitted by him were considered. The next issue that arises for consideration is whether the enquiry officer and, thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority acted upon material evidence in order to conclude that the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

charges were proved. It is clear from the enquiry officer’s report that he duly considered the birth certificate of the child born through the illegal second marriage and the voter’s list showing the names of the family members of the Petitioner, including the said Bharathi, in order to arrive at the conclusion that the charges were proved. It is settled law that this Court in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction does not sit in appeal over the findings of the enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority. The primary consideration is whether the procedure followed by the enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority is in compliance with the principles of natural justice. There can be no doubt that the procedure was in accordance with the principles of natural justice in this case. It is also clear from the records that the enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority acted upon relevant evidence and reached the conclusion on a preponderance of probabilities. As correctly contended by the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3, the principles laid down in (1995) 6 SCC 749 (cited supra) will squarely apply to this case in as much as there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the decision on the basis that the evidence was irrelevant and that the Authorities acted on no evidence. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the Impugned Order. As such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. In fine, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

14-07-2020 Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering & Technology & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
22-06-2020 Bank of Baroda Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
19-06-2020 The Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur & Another Versus Dr. Subroto Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-06-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Versus Steel Authority of India, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
02-06-2020 Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association, Reg No: 321/MDS, Rep by its Joint General Secretary, R. Muthukumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-05-2020 O.R. Rahul & Others Versus Indian Institute of Space Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
22-05-2020 M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service, Patna Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
19-05-2020 M.G. Narasimha Rao Versus The Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement, Roving Squad, Chengalpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-05-2020 Score Information Technology Ltd. Versus Central Organisation, Ex-Serviceman Contributory Health Scheme High Court of Delhi
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Appellate Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Labour And Two Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
16-04-2020 M/s. Mahaluxmi & Co., Rep by its Partner K. Jagatheeswaran Versus M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Chairman, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 Prince Versus The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Thillainagar Branch, Trichy & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Malay Kumar Majumder & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Jayakumar Assistant Professor-Cum-Assistant Director, Centre For Social Exclusion & Inclusion, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus Dr. Jyothi S. Nair & Others High Court of Kerala
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another 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 Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Versus TOYO Engineering Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 RAUS Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Indian Bank High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-03-2020 Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) Versus Union of India Supreme Court of India
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
05-03-2020 Dinesh Kumar Rao Versus G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
04-03-2020 S. Aruputharaj Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Education, Science & Technology, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Anil Ramdas Pawar V/S Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-03-2020 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Limited V/S Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit-1 Supreme Court of India
03-03-2020 Indian Society for Technical Education, Rep., by its Executive Secretary, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi Versus Anna University, Rep., by its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 The Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Asset Recovery, Chennai & Others Versus The Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 S. Elango Versus The Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Southern Region, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
27-02-2020 Indian Railways Represented by Southern Railways, Chennai Versus The Chairman and Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Limited & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
26-02-2020 Sam Sabu & Another Versus The General President, Indian Pentecostal Church of God (IPC), Thiruvalla & Others High Court of Kerala
25-02-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit-I & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2020 Taizuddin Ahmed Versus The Union of Indian Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India New Delhi, & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
19-02-2020 M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Rep. by its Chairman, Er.A. Mohamed Yunus, Trichy & Others Versus The Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Guindy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 The Indian Golf Union & Others Versus West Bengal Golf Society & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-02-2020 Shanti Bhatt & Others Versus Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-02-2020 Indian Optometry Federation Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
17-02-2020 Shriya Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Jaipur & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 M/s. Gas Links, Chennai & Others Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Bhushan Goyal V/S Indian Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 Asim Kumar Pal & Others Versus Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-02-2020 The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Anna University Campus, Chennai Versus Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Namakkal & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 Narendra Dejoo Shetty Versus Saumyalata Shyama Shetty Indian Inhabitant & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-02-2020 Modinasab Indikar Adult Versus Board of Directors of Indian Overseas Bank, represented by its Chairman and Chief Executive Director & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
13-02-2020 Daniel Oommen Versus National Institute of Technology, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
12-02-2020 Richa Jindal Versus Pec University of Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-02-2020 Indian Bank V/S N. Arumugham and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Chennai
10-02-2020 Kantaru Rajeevaru Versus Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr. Its General Secretary Ms. Bhakti Pasrija & Others Supreme Court of India
10-02-2020 Bank of Baroda & Another Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-02-2020 Achal Bisht Versus Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management & Catering Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-02-2020 Indian Overseas Bank V/S Sri Satyanarayana Educational Society and Others. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM
05-02-2020 Rasi Travels & Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd., A company having its Registered Office at Janpath, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Bontha Mohan Rao and Others. V/S Indian Overseas Bank and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
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 The Indian Medical Association, Chhattisgarh & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-02-2020 Syndicate Bank V/S Narayanadri Institute of Science And Technology and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
03-02-2020 Indian EX Bordermen Movement & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
31-01-2020 M/s. Indian Commercial Syndicate, Rep. by its Partner R. Natarajan, Coimbatore Versus The Special Committee, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 NR Raghuram & Co, Rep by its Proprietor N. Raghuraman Versus Indian Banks' Association, World Trade Centre, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi Versus Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Others High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 Dr. Santosh Kumar Baishya & Others Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Indian Council of Agriculture Research, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
29-01-2020 Tribunal on its own motion Suo Motu based on The News item in The New Indian Express, Chennai Versus District Collector, Chengalpattu & Others National Green Tribunal Southern Zone Chennai
24-01-2020 South Indian Artistes' Association, Rep. by its General Secretary, T. Nagar Versus The Registrar of Societies, South Chennai, District Registrar (Admin), Guindy Industrial Estate, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 The Indian Officer's Association, Chennai Versus M/s. Swaruba Engineering Construction Company Private Limited, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2020 Masaddar Ali Laskar, Officer Surveyor, Office of the Director GDC, Assam Nagaland, GDC Versus The Union of India, Through the Secretary, To the Government of India, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
14-01-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Limited Versus Sant Dasganu Maharaj Shetkari Sangh Akolner, Taluka Nagar & Others Supreme Court of India
13-01-2020 The Principal , Global Institute of Fashion Technology (GIFT) & Another Versus Bikramadittya Sai & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
10-01-2020 Indian Oil Corporation, Through its General Manager, Chennai Versus PKS Prashath & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 State of Kerala Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. High Court of Kerala
08-01-2020 Indian Bank & Others Versus Promila & Another Supreme Court of India
08-01-2020 Chandra Shekhar Azad Versus Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Assets Recovery Management Branch West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-01-2020 United Indian Insurance Company Limited, Through its Branch Manager Versus Ujwala Salgonkar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
07-01-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, "Aaykar Bhavan" Versus Gigabyte Technology (India) Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
06-01-2020 Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi Versus Shibu M. Job, Now Working as Director (Postal Life Insurance), Kolkatha & Others High Court of Kerala
03-01-2020 Indian Overseas Bank V/S Bharati Khandelwal Rice Mill Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Kolkata
03-01-2020 Indian Bank V/S Agri Gold Projects Ltd. and Others. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM
03-01-2020 St. Joseph's Boy's Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Coonoor, Nilgiris Versus The Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration & Water Supply, The Government Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-01-2020 Indian Overseas Bank V/S Sapthagiri Cotton Traders and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
01-01-2020 Raj Engineering Works and Others. V/S Indian Overseas Bank DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM
18-12-2019 DAV Public School Versus The Senior Manager, Indian Bank, Midnapur Branch & Others Supreme Court of India
17-12-2019 Vivekanandan & Others Versus The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Southern Regional Office, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-12-2019 M/s. Lanco Hills Technology Park Pvt Ltd. Versus Manisha Balkrishna Kulkarni & Another Supreme Court of India
16-12-2019 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., AP State Office, Hyderabad Versus M/s. N.R.P. Projects Private Ltd., Rep. by its Partner, Hitesh J. Patel High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-12-2019 Centre for Indian Trade Union (CITU), Head Load Workers Unit, Kottayi, Palakkad, Represented by Its Secretary & Others Versus Intercontinental Traders, Kottayi, Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Director & Others High Court of Kerala
11-12-2019 D.R. College of Engg. & Technology, College Campus at V&PO Kakoda Versus Nitin Parashar Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
10-12-2019 Hemant Kumar Singhal Versus Indian Overseas Bank & Another High Court of Delhi
09-12-2019 P. Ramesh Versus The General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank (Consumer Care), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-12-2019 Indian Association of Pathologists & Microbiologists Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
06-12-2019 The General Manager, Indian Institute of Emergency Medical Services, Noya Plaza, Kalathippadi, Kottayam Versus Anees Benny, Vaniyakizhakkel veedu, Thodupuzha Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
05-12-2019 Indian Bank & Others Versus Promila & Another Supreme Court of India
02-12-2019 Basava Engineering School of Technology Rep. by its Principal B.J. Patil Versus State of Karnataka Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Department of Technical Education High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
26-11-2019 Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Salem Versus The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 The Registrar, National Institute of Fashion Technology, N.I.F.T. Campus, Taramani, Chennai & Another Versus Sam D. Raja Prabhu & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 P. Rabinson Versus The Indian Bank, Represented by Zonal Officer, Cuddalore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2019 M/s. Sri Devi Karumariamman Educational Trust, Represented by its Trustee J. Kumaran, Chennai Versus Indian bank, Represented by its Assistant General Manager, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2019 Kantaru Rajeevaru Versus Indian Young Lawyers Association Thr.Its General Secretary & Others Supreme Court of India
13-11-2019 A.K. Vijayalakshmi & Another Versus Indian Bank, Gee Gee Complex & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2019 Biju Borah Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati