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



Sathi Khurana v/s Rajendra Singh Khurana


Company & Directors' Information:- R K KHURANA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC023830

Company & Directors' Information:- H. KHURANA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC035824

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJENDRA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1943PLC000306

Company & Directors' Information:- KHURANA AND KHURANA PVT. LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28991RJ1993PTC007523

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJENDRA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17219TZ1948PTC000161

    Criminal Revision No. 3145 of 2015

    Decided On, 02 December 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MADHUMATI MITRA

    For the Appearing Parties: Sanjoy Banerjee, Debajyoti Deb, Suveni Banerjee, Kamalesh Jha, Srabani Biswas, Advocates.



Judgment Text


1. This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner Smt. Sathi Khurana challenging the judgment and order dated July 31, 2014 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 6th Court, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in criminal appeal No.97 of 2013.

2. By the impugned judgment the Learned Appellate Court modified the judgment and order dated 26.06.2013 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore in Case No. C-1011 of 2010.

3. The facts which are essential for disposal of this revisional application may be summarized as under:-

4. The marriage of the present petitioner with the opposite party was solemnized in the year 2007. After solemnization of the social ceremony in the year 2008, the petitioner started to reside with the opposite party at her matrimonial home as mentioned in the cause title of this revisional application. It has been alleged by the petitioner in her application under Section 397 read with section 401 and 482 of the code of criminal procedure that since her marriage she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband/opposite party. All her stridhan including her jewellery which she had received as gifts at the time of her marriage were snatched away by her husband. The opposite party used to return at late night in a drunken condition along with his friends and used to humiliate the petitioner in presence of his friends. Petitioner tried her level best to adjust with the opposite party but failed. The opposite party was trying to drive the petitioner out from her matrimonial home. It was the specific allegation of the petitioner that her husband demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) from her as additional dowry. The petitioner was mercilessly assaulted by her husband as she failed to meet his demand. Her husband tried to murder her by opening the gas cylinder knob, but somehow she managed to escape. Ultimately on and from 31st December, 2009 the opposite party left the petitioner and shifted to another place. The petitioner has claimed that she has no independent source of income. She has apprehension that the opposite party will try to throw her out from her matrimonial home.

5. The petitioner has also stated that her husband earns Rs.80.000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per month from his business and he is also the owner of two flats at Calcutta and landed property.

6. Petitioner filed an application under Section 23 and Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. The said application was transferred to the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore for disposal. That application was registered as Case No. C-1011 of 2010.

7. The petitioner on 04.08.2010 got an order of interim maintenance and her husband was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) per month. By the said order dated August 4, 2010, the opposite party/husband was restrained from dispossessing the petitioner wife from the flat where she resides. Petitioner/wife challenged the said order dated 4th August, 2010 by filing an appeal before the Learned Sessions Judge, Alipore being Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2011. Ultimately that criminal appeal was disposed of on 23rd March, 2012 by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge 3rd Court, Alipore and Learned Judge enhanced the amount of interim maintenance to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month. Again the petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Court passed in criminal appeal no.23 of 2011 by preferring a revisional application being CRR no.1961 of 2012 before the High Court. The same order was also challenged by the present opposite party by filing another revisional application being CRR No.2924 of 2012. On September 28, 2012 both the revisional applications filed by the petitioner and opposite parties were disposed of by the High Court by passing a common order and the quantum interim maintenance was enhanced from Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) to Rs.5,500/-(Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred).

8. Ultimately the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was disposed of by the Learned Judicial Magistrate 10th Court, Alipore on June 26, 2013 and directed the opposite party husband to pay sum of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) per month as maintenance to the petitioner and also directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) to the petitioner as compensation and damages. At the time of passing the order dated 26th June, 2013 the Learned Magistrate restrained the opposite party from entering into the shared household where the petitioner resides and dispossessing the petitioner from the said shared households.

9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the final order passed by the Learned Magistrate on 26th June, 2013 in case No.C-1011 of 2010 preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2013 for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance and also for payment of compulsory maintenance at the rate of Rs.2200/- (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred only) in addition to the cost of the maintenance of the apartment in which she has been residing. The opposite party/husband also challenged the said order dated 26th March, 2013 passed by the Learned Magistrate by preferring another criminal appeal being No.106 of 2013.

10. On July 31, 2014 the Learned Additional Sessions Judge 6th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas disposed of both the Criminal Appeal no. 97 of 2013 and criminal appeal no.106 of 2013, preferred by the petitioner and the opposite party respectively by a common judgment. The Learned Appellant Court has reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) to Rs.30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand). At the same time the opposite party husband has been directed by the Appellate Court to pay at the rate of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) per month as maintenance to the petitioner. The husband/opposite party was also directed to pay the monthly maintenance amount for the flat no.1A, 1st Floor, 2770 NSC Bose Road directly to the Habitat Enclave Residents Welfare Association by the 10th of each month.

11. The petitioner has challenged the impugned Judgment and order passed by the Learned Appellate Court on 31.07.2014.

12. The impugned judgment and order have been assailed by the Learned Counsel of the petitioner on the ground that the Learned Appellate Court has committed an error in reducing the amount of compensation from Rs,3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) to Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand). In support of his contention, Learned Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Learned Magistrate and submitted that the Learned Magistrate rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) to the petitioner considering all aspects and there was no valid ground to interfere with the order of awarding compensation to the petitioner. According to his contention, the reduction of the amount of compensation by the Appellate Court is not sustainable in law as Learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the materials placed on record. He has further contented that the Learned Appellate Court at the time of reducing amount of compensation has failed to make any specific observations in support of his conclusion and the conclusion arrived at by the Learned Appellate Court regarding reduction of compensation amount is not at all justified.

13. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/husband has forcefully submitted that Learned Magistrate while awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-(rupees Three Lakh) to the petitioner failed to assign any reason and it is not clear from the said order on what basis the amount was determined as compensation. In support of his contention the Learned Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Learned Magistrate and contented that the order of awarding compensation to the petitioner suffers from vagueness and is not sustainable in law. He has also contended that the present revisional application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

14. Section 22 of the Pgrotection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, lays down provision for awarding compensation.

15. Section 22 of the said act runs as under:-

"Compensation orders.- In addition to other reliefs as may be granted under this Act, the Magistrate may on an applications being made by the aggrieved person, pass an order directing the respondent to pay compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by that respondent."

16. In the instant case the petitioner/wife was awarded compensation by the Learned Magistrate to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh). The said amount of compensation has been reduced by the Learned Appellate Court in appeal to Rs.30.000/- (rupees Thirty Thousand only).

17. We all know that generally compensation can be awarded to a person for the loss or injury suffered by him due to the act of the opposite party. The right to get compensation has been recognized by Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Section 22 speaks about not only compensation but also damages for the injuries including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondents.

18. The Learned Magistrate directed the opposite party/husband to pay compensation of Rs.3,00.000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) to the wife. The order passed by the Learned Magistrate was completely silent with regards to the reasons which were taken into consideration to award the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh). Learned Magistrate did not mention anything in his order as to why Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) was awarded as compensation.

19. Having regard to the rival submissions made by Learned Counsel appearing for the parties the only question arises in the application as to whether the Learned Appellate Court was justified in reducing the amount of compensation granted to the petitioner by the Learned Magistrate.

20. The determination of compensation must be rational, to be calculated by a judicious approach and it should not be an outcome of guesses or arbitrariness. While calculating the amount of compensation it should be considered that in absence of any evidence or material on record grant of compensation cannot be justified.

21. Compensation for mental or physical shock, pain suffering, frustration, mental stress etc. can be given if there is sufficient evidence on record in this regard.

22. In her deposition before the Learned Magistrate in connection with her application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the petitioner wife stated that she was physically assaulted by her husband. No medical paper was produced by the petitioner before the Learned Magistrate regarding the injuries sustained by her or the expenses incurred by her for treatment. From the materials placed on record it appears that the petitioner is residing at Habitat Enclave, Flat no.1A, 1st floor, 2770 NSC Bose Road, Goria which belongs to the opposite party separately from her husband.

23. Both the Learned Magistrate and the Appellate Court arrived at the conclusion that the opposite party/husband is guilty of domestic violence. I do not find any reason to interfere with concurrent findings of both the Learned Courts below in this regard. From the observations made by the Learned Courts below as well as from the materials placed on record it cannot be denied that the wife suffered pain and mental agony due to the behaviour and conduct on the part of her husband. In the above situation I think that a reasonable amount can be awarded as just and proper compensation for the mental pain and agony of the wife. It is very difficult to assess the actual compensation for the mental pain and agony. The Learned Appellate Court reduced the amount of compensati

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

on from Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh) to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand). 24. In his Judgment the Learned Appellate Court has observed that the amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees Three Lakh) was excessive and Learned Appellate Court has reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) keeping in view of the monthly income of the respondent. I do not find any reason to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by the Learned Appellate Court. 25. The another contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner claimed maintenance of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month but she was awarded maintenance Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) per month. Both the Learned Courts below determined the amount of maintenance Rs.8000/- per month after taking into consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Learned Courts below in this regard. 26. I also do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by Learned Appellate Court. The present Revisional Application is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. 27. Urgent photostate certified copy of this order if applied, be supplied to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

31-08-2020 Rajendra Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
24-08-2020 M/s. Govindhji Jewat & Co., Represented by its Partner Rajendra Kone & Others Versus M/s. Rukmani Mills Ltd., Represented by its Board of Directors, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-08-2020 Atalbiharikumar Rajendra Mandal Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
23-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Authorized signatory, Pravin Prabhakar Prabhu Versus Kameshwari Rajendra Sabnis & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
30-06-2020 Union Bank of India, Through Shri R. Rajendra Prasad, Branch Manager, Raichur Versus M/s. Tirumala Enterprises, Raichur National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Rajendra Singh & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
26-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar & Others Versus Raj Kumar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-05-2020 Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport Undertaking Versus Rajendra Visanji Thakkar & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar Chandrol Versus High Court of Madhya Pradesh
21-04-2020 Babu Rajendra Versus Basalingappa & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-03-2020 Satish Kumar Khandelwal V/S Rajendra Jain & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
24-02-2020 Manaj Tollway Private Limited Versus Rajendra Rahane Superintending Engineer & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-02-2020 Rajendra K. Bhutta Versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Another Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, New Delhi Versus Rajendra Sudamrao Shinde & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-02-2020 Nisar Ahmad Versus Rajendra Kumar Soni & Others High Court of Delhi
10-02-2020 Rajendra Versus Jugalkishor & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
17-01-2020 Rajendra Mishra Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-01-2020 Rajendra Saxena & Another Versus Sharda Ratnam & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-01-2020 Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt Thro Shweta Sanjiv Bhatt Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
16-01-2020 Rajendra Kumar Verma & Another Versus Dolly Rani Bag & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-01-2020 Harendra Ramchandra Pathak Versus Rajendra Ratan Mhatre High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-01-2020 Dr. N. Rajendra Prasad & Others Versus Lingampally Srinivas & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
06-01-2020 Rajendra Kumar Khera & Others Versus U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-12-2019 Rajendra Manohar Kowli & Another Versus Bank of India Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
26-12-2019 Rajendra Girdhar Patel Versus State Of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
10-12-2019 Rajendra Diwan Versus Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Another Supreme Court of India
03-12-2019 Rajendra Singh Tomar & Others Versus State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary & Others Supreme Court of India
02-12-2019 Ajit Rajendra Bhagwat & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-11-2019 Balasaheb Govind Basugade Versus Rajendra Shivaji Kumthekar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-11-2019 Jaihind Sahakari Pani Purvatha Mandali Ltd. Shirdhon, Kolhapur Versus Rajendra Bandu Khot & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-11-2019 Rajendra Prasad Versus Sikkim University & Others High Court of Sikkim
25-10-2019 K. Rajendra Prasad & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-10-2019 Rajendra Agrawal Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-10-2019 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rajendra Kumar & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
25-09-2019 Kalpana Rajendra Kothari & Others Versus Santosh Arvind Jangam & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-09-2019 Krushna Shivaji Patil Versus Parmanand Rajendra Patil & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-09-2019 Malkit Kaur Versus Joginder Lal Khurana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
05-09-2019 M/s. Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Kanthibai Rajendra Sheth Versus M/s. E.C. Bose & Company Private Limited, Kolkata & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2019 Raju @ Rajendra Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-08-2019 Rajendra Mahadeorao Chaudhary Versus Gajanan Keshavrao Bore In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-08-2019 Rajendra Kumar Goyal & Another Versus South City Project (Kolkata) Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-08-2019 Rajendra Pandit Versus Union of India, Through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-08-2019 Rajendra Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-07-2019 N. Rajendra Reddy Versus The Block Development Officer, Sholingur Panchayat Union, Vellore District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2019 Rajendra Versus Gopinath In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-07-2019 Rajendra Versus Vikas & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-07-2019 Rajendra Agarwal & Others Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
22-07-2019 Rajendra Prasad Sharma Versus M/s. Hartin Harris Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-07-2019 Sujan Bhabani Prasad Chatterjee & Another Versus Rajendra Kumar Singh & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-07-2019 C. Rajendra Prasad Versus The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-07-2019 Rajendra Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-07-2019 Rajendra Kumar through Nisar Mohammad Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh
01-07-2019 Rajendra Shivsing Chanda & Others Versus Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
17-06-2019 Rajendra Kumar Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
30-04-2019 Siddesh Tours and Travels (Prop.Shri Rajendra Ramdas Yerandekar) Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai VII Commissionerate High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-04-2019 Dr. P. Rajendra Prasad Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-04-2019 Sant Kejaji Maharaj Smruti & Another Versus Rajendra Deoraoji Raut & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-04-2019 Rajendra Singh & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
09-04-2019 Raju @ Rajendra Dashrath Khaire & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-03-2019 Rajendra Versus State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
28-03-2019 Rajendra Kumar Goyal Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-03-2019 Rajendra R. Vishwakarma Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2019 Rajendra Vitthal Bahirat & Another Versus Prakash Ramchandra Girame High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2019 Rajendra Chawla & Others Versus Chandra Prakash Chabda & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
15-02-2019 National Federation of Fishers Cooperatives Ltd., Through its Managing Director & Another Versus Rajendra Singh & Others High Court of Delhi
12-02-2019 Rajendra Singh Negi Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
12-02-2019 Hiteshkumar Rameshbhai Patel Versus Rajendra Mataprasad Yadav High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
12-02-2019 Ashruba Dhondiba Gade Versus Rajendra Shankar Sut & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-02-2019 Khurana Constructions Versus IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
31-01-2019 Rajendra Lalitkumar Agrawal Versus Ratna Ashok Muranjan & Another Supreme Court of India
24-01-2019 Rajendra Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan Through PP. High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
23-01-2019 Rajendra Sharma Versus Union Of India Through Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-01-2019 Commissioner of Customs Versus Shiva Khurana High Court of Delhi
14-01-2019 Rajendra Pundlikrao Deore & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary ? Coo-peration & Marketing Dept. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-01-2019 Rajendra Kumar Bagaria Versus State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation & Another High Court of Jharkhand
10-01-2019 Rajendra Prasad Pal & Another Versus State of U.P.Thru. Prin Secy Deptt of Basic Edu & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
09-01-2019 Vikas Khurana Versus Preeti Khurana High Court of Delhi
09-01-2019 Veer Rajendra Rajput Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-01-2019 B. Rajendra Kumar Versus The Airport Authority of India, New Delhi, Represented by Its Chairman & Others High Court of Kerala
07-01-2019 Rajendra Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
02-01-2019 Rajendra Prasad Rao Versus Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Dhurwa, Ranchi High Court of Jharkhand
12-12-2018 Sant Shankar Maharaj Ashram Trust, Pimpalkhuta, through its Secretary, Rajendra Versus State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Social Justice & Special Assistance Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
12-12-2018 Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
07-12-2018 State Transport Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Versus Rajendra Sudhakar Mahalpure High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-11-2018 Rajendra Ramakant Vedpathak Versus Tarvidersingh Harbansingh Popali & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-11-2018 Rajendra Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
01-11-2018 M/s. RA Chem Pharma Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, J. Rajendra Rao & Another Versus State of A.P. Rep. by the Public Prosecutor & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
01-11-2018 Rajendra Prasad Singh & Others Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
30-10-2018 Shrikant & Rajendra Vilas Choudhary Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-10-2018 Jonnalgadda Rajendra Prasad/Edukondalur RP & Others Versus Sri Yogananda Lakshmi Narasimhaswami Vari Temple, Rep. by its Single Trustee-cum-hereditary Archaka, Parasaram Lakshmi Vara Prasad, Avanigadda In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
23-10-2018 Rajendra Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh Supreme Court of India
19-10-2018 Kallinath Shivyogi Dhange Versus Rajendra @ Apparao Mdhukarrao Vedpathak & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
10-10-2018 Pankaj @ Pintu Rajendra Marve Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-10-2018 A. Rajendra & Others Versus The State, Represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruchendur & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-09-2018 Mohit Khurana Versus State (NCT of Delhi) & Others High Court of Delhi
20-09-2018 Rajendra Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad