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



Satya Narayan v/s State


Company & Directors' Information:- SATYA CO LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1937PLC009050

Company & Directors' Information:- NARAYAN [Strike Off] CIN = U00111KA2006PTC390000

    Civil Writ Petition No. 3765 of 95

    Decided On, 18 February 2000

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.J. SHETHNA

    For the Petitioner: K.N. Joshi, Advocate. For the Respondent: Hemant Chaudhary, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. As per the notification for auction of "Tendu Patta" for the year 1992, the petitioner gave offer of Rs. 9,18,999/- to the respondents. The tenders were opened on 5-2-92 and the petitioner also deposited earnest money of Rs. 93,000/- on 5-2-92 itself. The petitioner's offer was highest. On a day earlier to it i.e. on 4-2-92, the petitioner gave undertaking (Annex. R/3). Relevant para of which is as under :-

'LANGUAGE'

2. As per clause 586 of the Forest Manual the Tendu tree should be pollarded an coppiced during the period from 15th February to 15th March. Though the bid of the petitioner was highest and the petitioner deposited earnest money of Rs. 93,000/- his tender was not accepted or rejected for a considerable time and the crucial time from 15th February to 15th March was passing away, therefore, the petitioner sent telegram and requested the respondents to issue an order of acceptance immediately i.e. within 5 days and also made it clear that if the order is not passed then he shall not be liable to accept the offer. However, in spite of telegram no action was taken by the authority, therefore, on 9-3-92 (Annex. 1) the petitioner addressed a letter to the authority stating that if the order of acceptance and confirmation of bid is not given to him then he shall be allowed to have cultural operation at his own cost. It is further stated that if this is also not possible then his bid may be cancelled and treated as deemed to have been withdrawn and the earnest money deposited by him be returned to him. Respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 9-3-92 (Annex. 2) informed the petitioner that since he has not been appointed as purchaser, no permission for cultural operation can be given.

3. Under the circumstances, by a letter dated 14-3-1992 (Annex. 3) the petitioner informed the respondent No. 2 that he is withdrawing his offer made on 5-2-92 and the amount of earnest money of Rs. 93,000/- be refunded to him with 24% interest because crucial period from 15th February to 15th March was almost over. Instead of replying this letter the respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated 3-4-92 (Annex. 4) informed the petitioner that his bid was accepted and he was asked to deposit 25% security amount of Rs. 2,29,750/-, out of which he had already deposited the amount of Rs. 93,000/- by way of earnest money, therefore, remaining amount of Rs. 1,36,750/- asked to be deposited within 15 days. This letter was received by the petitioner on 7-4-1992. The same was not at all replied by the petitioner, therefore, the respondent No. 3 issued notice dated 23-4-1992 (Annex. 5) stating that if the petitioner is not prepared to work then it will be reauctioned. The same was also not replied by the petitioner.

4. It appears that after withdrawing his offer the petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No. 1601/92 before this Court for refund of earnest money of Rs. 93000/- with interest from the respondents. The said writ petition was rejected by my learned brother Hon'ble V.G. Palshikar, J. on 5-2-1995 on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the competent Civil Court for refund of his amount which he had deposited by way of earnest money. The same was challenged by the petitioner before the Division Bench being D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 789/95 and the same was also dismissed on 8-8-96 (reported in (1996 (3) Raj LW 646) by the Division Bench of this Court on the ground of alternative remedy was available to the petitioner. It appears that after the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on 5-2-95, the respondent No. 3 issued notice dated 29-9-95 (Annex.6) calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 12,94,815/- towards damages which they suffered because of breach of contract by the petitioner. It is also stated in the said notice that in failure to pay the amount it will be recovered from the petitioner as land revenue under the Land Revenue Act. This has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice at Annex. 6 dated 29-9-95 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest - respondent No. 3 calling upon the petitioner to deposit Rs. 12,94,815/- towards damages failing which the said amount shall be recovered from him under the provision of Land Revenue Act is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside because the petitioner had never taken possession. Mr. Joshi submitted that the petitioner did give an undertaking on 4-2-1992, but though his bid was highest and that he also deposited earnest money of Rs. 93000/- immediately on the next day i.e. on 5-2-92, his tender was neither accepted nor rejected for a considerable time and the crucial time from 15th February to 15th March was passing away, therefore, first the petitioner sent telegram and requested the authority to issue an order of acceptance immediately within 5 days and also made it clear to the authorities that if the order is not passed then he shall not be liable to accept the offer. However, in spite of such telegram no action was taken by the authorities, therefore, on 9-3-92 the petitioner addressed a letter to the authority to the effect that if the order of acceptance and confirmation of bid is not given to him then at least he may be allowed to have cultural operation at his own cost and if it is not possible then his bid may be cancelled and treated as withdrawn and the earnest money of Rs. 93000/- deposited by him be returned to him. Mr. Joshi learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 9-3-92 informed the petitioner that since he was not appointed as purchaser, no such permission for cultural operation can be granted.

6. Mr. Joshi, therefore, submitted that under the circumstances, on 14-3-1992 the petitioner had to withdraw his offer dated 5-2-92 when the crucial period from 15th February to 15th March was about to over on the next day i.e. 16-3-1992 and he also requested the authority to refund the amount of earnest money of Rs. 93000/-. In short, it was submitted by Mr. Joshi that when the contract between him and the respondent authorities frustrated then he approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1601/92, which was dismissed by my learned brother Hon'ble V. G. Palshikar, J. on 5-9-95 on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy for recovery of earnest money of Rs. 93000/- before the Civil Court. Against which the petitioner preferred D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 989/95 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 8-8-96. He, therefore, submitted that in a similar way the respondent authority should have approached the Civil Court for recovery of amount of Rs. 12,94,815/- for liquidated damages. In support of his submission, Mr. Joshi has relied upon the judgment of my learned brother Hon'ble V. G. Palshikar, J. delivered in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 86/86 on 28-11-95 in which the petitioner of that case had challenged the similar notice to pay the balance of bid money and in failure to pay the said amount he was informed by the authority that coercive recovery would be made under Section 229 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 as a land revenue. The said notice was declared illegal and quashed on the ground that such a notice under the Land Revenue Act was wholly unsustainable in law when the factual possession was not taken by the petitioner, therefore, the contract was frustrated and the remedy for such frustration of contract or breach of contract was an action for liquidated damages would be only in a Civil Court, but such recovery cannot be made under the provisions of Land Revenue Act.

7. However, learned counsel Shri Hemant Chaudhary for the respondents submitted that after having given the undertaking in his own hand writing on 4-2-92 (Annex. R/3 to the reply affidavit) it was not open to the petitioner to frustrate the contract on any ground. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned notice at Annex. 6 is legal and valid and the authority is empowered to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of amount of Rs. 12,94,815/- towards damages. He submitted that Hon'ble V. G. Palshikar, J. while allowing the Writ Petition No. 86/86 on 28-11-95 and quashing such notice issued under the Land Revenue Act has not considered this aspect namely the undertaking and that point was never raised on behalf of the Govt. in that petition. He, therefore, submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court has no application on facts of this case. He also submitted that having failed in his challenge to get back the earnest money of Rupees 93000/- from the Govt. it was not open to him to file this second petition and this second petition is barred by principle of constructive res judicata because earlier writ petition was already dismissed by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court in special appeal filed by the petitioner.

8. It is true that when my learned Brother Hon'ble V. G. Palshikar allowed Writ Petition No. 86/86 on 28-11-1995 such undertaking was not there, therefore, it was not considered at all. Be that as it may, in my opinion, whether there was an undertaking or not the law laid down by the learned Single Judge is that the notice for recovery of balance amount under the provision of Land Revenue Act is wholly unsustainable in law when the factual possession was not taken by the petitioner. If for that the contract is frustrated then the remedy for such frustration of contract or breach of contract by the Govt. or the authority was before the Civil Court for claiming liquidated damages and not under the provisions of Land Revenue Act.

9. At the cost of repetition, I may state that the bid of the petitioner was highest and he also deposited earnest money of Rs. 93000/- on 5-2-1992. There is a clear provision under Clause 586 of the Forest Manual that Tendu trees should be pollarded and coppiced during the period 15th February to 15th March. Though the bid of the petitioner was highest, his tender was not accepted or rejected for a considerable time and when the crucial period from 15th February to 15th March was passing away fast, therefore, firstly the petitioner sent telegram to the authority and requested it to issue an order of acceptance immediately and made it clear that if such order is not passed then he shall not be liable to accept the offer. However, the authority did not act on such telegram, therefore, on 9-3-92 the petitioner wrote a letter to the authority to the effect that if the order of acceptance and confirmation of bid cannot be given to him then atleast he should be allowed to have cultural operation at his own cost, and if that is also not possible then his bid may be cancelled and treated as deemed to have been withdrawn and the earnest money be refunded to him. However, the respondent No. 3 only informed the petitioner that since he has not been appointed as purchaser so far, therefore, no such permission for cultural operation can be granted, therefore, at last by his letter dated 14-3-1992 the petitioner informed the respondent No. 2 that now he is withdrawing his offer made on 5-2-92 and also prayed to refund the earnest money of Rs. 93000/- with 24% interest because the crucial period from 15th February to 15th March was almost over. Instead of replying that letter the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner by a letter dated 3-4-1992 that his bid was accepted and he was asked to deposit 25% security amount of Rupees 2,29,750/- out of which he has already deposited Rs. 93000/- by way of earnest money, therefore, remaining amount of Rs. 1,36,750/- was asked to be deposited by the petitioner within 15 days. When the petitioner had already withdrawn his offer made on 5-2-1992 before acceptance or another person as purchaser then in my opinion if at all there is liquidated damages to the respondent authorities then only course left open to the authorities was to approach the Civil Court and not under the Land Revenue Act.

10. I have already set out the condition No. 6 of the undertaking of the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner has stated that he will abide by the terms and conditions of the tender till it is accepted or rejected by the competent authority or till the appointment of another person as purchaser. As stated earlier, before withdrawing his offer by letter dated 14-3-1992 the petitioner requested the respondent authorities to issue an order of acceptance immediately and, thereafter, requested the authorities to atleast allow him to have cultural operation at his own cost till the acceptance and confirmation of his offer, but the same was specifically refused by the respondent No. 3 by letter dated 9-3-1992 (Annex.2) on the ground that he was not yet appointed as a purchaser, therefore, such permission for cultural operation cannot be granted. Thus, the undertaking of the petitioner at Annex.R/3 is also not binding to the petitioner. In any case, if the authority feels that because of the petitioner they have suffered damages to the tune of Rs.12,94,815/- then as held by my learned brother Hon'ble V. G. Palshikar, J. in writ petition No. 86/86 the authority should approach the competent civil Court and not under the provisions of Land Revenue Act.

11. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned notice at Annex.6 dated 29-9-1995 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authority can act in accordance with law against the petitioner by approaching the competent civil Court by way of suit provided it is within the period of limitation.

12. Before parting, I must state that Mr. Hemant Chaudhary submitted that authority could not accept and confirm the bid of the petitioner because of the stay g

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ranted by this Court in a writ petition No. 359/92 filed by one Dilip Singh, which was dismissed and stay was vacated only on 17-3-1992 and, thereafter, immediately on 31-3-1992 the acceptance was granted by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur and accordingly, the Deputy Conservator of Forest accepted the offer of the petitioner on 3-4-1992 which was received by the petitioner on 7-4-1992. He, therefore, submitted that authority was not at fault in not accepting the offer of the petitioner immediately after the bid of the petitioner on 5-2-1992, therefore, the authority may not be made to suffer for no fault of it. It may be that there was a stay against the authority in a petition filed by one Dilip Singh. At the same time it cannot also be said that the petitioner was at fault in withdrawing his offer. 13. It is also true that earlier writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on the ground that the petitioner had better alternative remedy before civil Court for recovery of his earnest money, but there is no question of constructive res judicata applying in this matter because in this petition the prayer is altogether different. The subsequent notice dated 29-9-1995 (Annex.6) demanding a sum of Rs.12,94,815/- is challenged in this petition and in failure to pay the same, the same shall be recovered by way of land revenue under the Land Revenue Act. 14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, the impugned notice at Annex-6 is quashed and set aside. Petition Allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

17-04-2020 Shankar Sakharam Kenjale (Died) Through His Legal Heirs Versus Narayan Krishna Gade & Another Supreme Court of India
24-03-2020 Narayan Baidyakar Versus The State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
19-03-2020 Satya Devi Versus State of HP & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
17-03-2020 Aashu Pandit @ Aashu Bajpai @ Aash Narayan Sharma Versus Union of India High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
11-03-2020 Narayan & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
04-03-2020 State of Goa Versus Narayan V. Gaonkar & Others Supreme Court of India
03-03-2020 State of Goa Versus Narayan V. Gaonkar & Others Supreme Court of India
02-03-2020 M/s. Appease Apartment & Others Versus Sudip Narayan Ghosh & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
28-02-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus Sri Satya Narayan Behura Supreme Court of India
25-02-2020 Narayan Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
03-02-2020 Gunjesh Narayan Versus Anjali Kumari High Court of Judicature at Patna
31-01-2020 Prem Narayan Gwal Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
31-01-2020 Devendra Narayan Dubey Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., Uttranchal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-01-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. Versus Satya Devi & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
13-01-2020 Narayan Sarkar & Another Versus The General Manager, Tripura Scheduled Caste Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd., West Tripura & Another Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
10-01-2020 The Sub-area Manager, Sasti Open Cast Mines, Western Coalfields Ltd. Versus Narayan Karu Dahekar In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-01-2020 Badri Narayan Sharma V/S Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
08-01-2020 Badri Narayan Sharma Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
19-12-2019 Prem Narayan @ Prem Verma Throu Versus Union of India & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
18-12-2019 Branch Manager, Bandhan Bank, Tripura Versus Narayan Sarkar & Others Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
02-12-2019 MunMun Chakraborty Versus Triveni Constructions Rep. by Satyendra Pandey & Nag Narayan Mishra & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-11-2019 Radha Bai Versus Ram Narayan & Others Supreme Court of India
19-11-2019 Baidyanath Yadav Versus Aditya Narayan Roy & Others Supreme Court of India
22-10-2019 M/s. Kelkar & Kelkar Versus Shripad Narayan Gore & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-10-2019 Gadiraju Venkata Satya Subramanya Raju & Others Versus State of A.P. & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
14-10-2019 Babasheb Narayan Naik & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
10-10-2019 Narayan Das Najwani & Others Versus Sahara Prime City Ltd. & Others Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur
18-09-2019 Narayan Kuamr Versus Kamal Kishore Gupta High Court of Delhi
16-09-2019 Bank of Baroda Through its Assistant General Manager Prem Narayan Sharma Versus State of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
13-09-2019 Balwant S/o Narayan Kannav (Dead) through his legal heir's: Versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-08-2019 M/s. Tulsi Narayan Garg, Sarawagi Mohalla, Sheopur Through Its Proprietor Tulsi Narayan Garg Versus M.P. Road Development Authority, Bhopal & Others Supreme Court of India
29-08-2019 Sachin Narayan & Others Versus The Income Tax Department & Others High Court of Karnataka
22-08-2019 Collector Lac & Another Versus Narayan Singh & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
22-08-2019 Deo Narayan Singh & Others Versus The Board of Trustees, Indian Museum & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-08-2019 Manab Mallick Versus Narayan Ghosh & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-07-2019 M/s. Polyene General Industries Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Narayan, Guindy Versus M/s. Great Western Industries Limited, Represented by its Director M. Narayanan, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2019 Rajesh Chandra Narayan Versus State of Bihar & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
05-07-2019 Varashree Narayan Versus Sagar Tear Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-06-2019 M. Narayan Versus Dr. S. Nagaraju High Court of Karnataka
20-06-2019 Annai Satya Nagar and Sanjay Nagar Residents Welfare Association, Represented by R. Srinivasan, Vyasarpadi Versus The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Chennai Circle III High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-06-2019 Sugandhabai & Sundarabai J. Sakharam Meher Versus Shrawan @ Vistari V. Narayan Karanba In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
28-05-2019 Hari Narayan Versus Shanti Devi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
10-05-2019 Kumud Versus Pandurang Narayan Gandhewar Through Lrs. & Others Supreme Court of India
10-05-2019 Jai Prakash Narayan Sinha Versus The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Magadh Division & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-05-2019 Laxmi Narayan Kansara Versus Tejpal High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
01-05-2019 Shankar Lal Versus Lrs of Satya, Narayan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
18-04-2019 Satya Prakash Verma Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-04-2019 Satya Narain Kushwaha Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-04-2019 Pandurang Narayan Jadhav Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-04-2019 Satya Prakash Versus Chairman Cum Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
04-04-2019 Laxmi Narayan & Others Versus Diwan Singh & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
02-04-2019 Kailash Narayan Versus State of M.P. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
29-03-2019 Narayan Rajaram Amre & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-03-2019 Union of India & Others Versus Dr. Narayan Rao Battu & Another High Court of Delhi
20-03-2019 Pravendu Narayan Sinha Versus The Indian Railways Rep. by its Chairman & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-03-2019 Koyya Ganga Venkata Satya Bhaskara Rao Versus Koyya Rama Krishnudu & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-03-2019 Hari Narayan Mondal & Others Versus M/s. Track India Pharma Div High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-03-2019 Preeti Versus Jai Narayan Saharan High Court of Rajasthan
26-02-2019 Dr. Sharmistha Patra Versus Narayan Sarkar & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-02-2019 Geeta Poddar Versus Satya Developers Private Limited High Court of Delhi
25-02-2019 Deep Narayan Chourasia Versus State of Bihar Supreme Court of India
18-02-2019 Jai Kumar Sao Versus Om Narayan Singh High Court of Chhattisgarh
11-02-2019 Tej Narayan Kahar Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
08-02-2019 S. Narayan Versus State of Karnataka by Police of Malleshwaram Police Station High Court of Karnataka
04-02-2019 Nirbhay Narayan Singh Versus State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-02-2019 M/s. Satya Parkash & Bros (P) Ltd. Versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
04-02-2019 Satya Prakash Gupta & Others Versus Lala Kanshi Ram Gupta & Others High Court of Delhi
04-02-2019 Tuhin Narayan Bose Versus Shribhumi Realty Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
01-02-2019 Sampad Narayan Mukherjee Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-02-2019 MAHARASHTRA RAJYA MADHYAMIK VA UCCHA MADHYAMIK SHALA KRUTI SAMITEE, SH. DATTATRAY NARAYAN PATIL V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS. Supreme Court of India
30-01-2019 The State of Bihar & Another Versus Dr. Sachindra Narayan & Others Supreme Court of India
28-01-2019 Swapnil Narayan Malke & Another Versus Additional Commissioner & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
28-01-2019 Satya Raj Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Supreme Court of India
23-01-2019 M/s. D. Dayabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Through their Director Nitesh Kothari Versus Narayan Ganu Tangdi (since deceased) through LRs. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-01-2019 Lakshmi Narayan Educational Versus ITO Exemption Ward, Salem Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
19-12-2018 Satya Prakash Aggarwal Versus Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-12-2018 Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Satya Narayan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-12-2018 Kamlakar Narayan Barmate & Others Versus Chief Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, (Now Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd.) & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
11-12-2018 Deep Narayan Tiwari Versus State of MP & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
30-11-2018 The State of Bihar & Others Versus Kirti Narayan Prasad Supreme Court of India
28-11-2018 Narayan Malhari Thorat Versus Vinayak Deorao Bhagat & Another Supreme Court of India
13-11-2018 EX CT Ram Narayan Yadav Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
30-10-2018 M/s. Laxmi Narayan Builders & Suppliers Versus M/s. Ganpati Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
29-10-2018 Raj Narayan, IDSE & Another Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
25-10-2018 Satya Narayan Rai @ Satto Rai Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
23-10-2018 Shrikant Versus Narayan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Others Supreme Court of India
08-10-2018 Khama Ram Vishnoi Versus Jai Narayan Vyas University High Court of Rajasthan
26-09-2018 Kamal Narayan Versus Ld.Civil Judge, Senior Division, through District Court, Gondia & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
25-09-2018 Shiv Narayan (Died and deleted) & Others Versus Jaimangal (Died) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-09-2018 Income Tax Officer Versus Laxmi Narayan Nagari Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune
14-09-2018 Surya Narayan Tripathi Versus State High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-09-2018 Narayan Ramchandra Mante (Died) Through Legal Heirs: & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, through the A.C.B., Buldana Tq. & District Buldana In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
10-09-2018 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana Versus Satya Narayan Pal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-08-2018 Narayan Sherigara Versus Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Director & Another High Court of Karnataka
24-08-2018 Abodh Narayan Prasad Versus M/s. Affordable Exports High Court of Delhi
23-08-2018 Vempali Veera Venkata Satya Raghavendra Rao Versus The State of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Home Dept., Secretariat In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
21-08-2018 Narayan Makwana & Another Versus State of MP. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
20-08-2018 M/s. SHL Ventures Versus P. Venkata Satya Prasad Rao National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-08-2018 Vishnu Narayan Shivpuri Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-08-2018 Ramesh Narayan Ghate Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box