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



Scott Christian College, Rep.by its Correspondent S. Byju Nizeth Paaul v/s The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2006PTC235208

Company & Directors' Information:- H H EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301WB1997PTC083294

Company & Directors' Information:- P. L. G. EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80300DL2007PTC171109

Company & Directors' Information:- C S EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80211DL2004PTC125711

Company & Directors' Information:- B L AND CO NEW DELHI PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1968PTC004910

Company & Directors' Information:- S D EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80903MH2004PTC147463

Company & Directors' Information:- K-EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301MH2014PTC256056

Company & Directors' Information:- A S C EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U80904TG2015PTC099629

Company & Directors' Information:- V S INDIA EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80904UP2016PTC084320

Company & Directors' Information:- O S EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035501

Company & Directors' Information:- G D EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302DL2003PTC122716

Company & Directors' Information:- S S V EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80904DL2012PTC245724

Company & Directors' Information:- S S M EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200HR2010PTC040713

Company & Directors' Information:- NEW INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36999TN1940PTC001776

Company & Directors' Information:- P H EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U80211DL2008PTC177735

Company & Directors' Information:- O E S EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302DL2006PTC154572

    WP No. 9889 of 2020 & WMP Nos. 12018, 12019 & 12021 of 2020

    Decided On, 12 August 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

    For the Petitioner: G. Sankaran, Advocate. For the Respondents: A.L. Ganthimathi, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Final Letter of Rejection issued by the 1st respondent in F.No.Southern/2020/1-7324244651_LOR dated 30.06.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to consider the compliance report submitted by the petitioner College on 24.06.2020 and to grant approval for starting Master of Business Administration [MBA] and Master of Computer Applications [MCA] Post Graduation courses in the petitioner College from the academic year 2020-21 forthwith.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -College challenging the Rejection Letter issued by the 1st respondent dated 30.06.2020 and for a consequential direction, to direct the respondents to consider the Compliance Report submitted by the petitioner -College on 24.06.2020 and to grant approval for the courses that was proposed to be commenced from the academic year 2020-21.

2. The petitioner -College is a 128 year old Institution. It was already offering various courses. The petitioner - College wanted to start Post Graduate [PG] Programmes, viz., M.B.A. [Master of Business Administration] and M.C.A [Master of Computer Applications]. The petitioner -College made an application in January 2019 to the All India Council for Technical Education [AICTE]. It was returned due to technical errors and thereafter, it was not processed during the academic year 2019-2020. The petitioner -College, once again submitted necessary application for grant of approval for the PG Programmes for the academic year 2020-21 in the month of February 2020. On receipt of the application, a communication was sent to the petitioner -College to attend the Scrutiny Committee on 12.03.2020 with all relevant records. The representatives of the petitioner -College also attended the said Meeting and submitted the documents.

3. The 2nd respondent was prima facie satisfied with the application submitted by the petitioner -College and hence, forwarded the same for proposal to the 1st respondent who is the competent authority for grant of approval. The Southern Regional Headquarters at New Delhi, issued proceedings dated 03.06.2020 calling upon the petitioner -College and directing the petitioner - College to comply with certain deficiencies and report the same. The petitioner -College submitted the Compliance Report and it was verified by the Standing Appellate Committee [SAC] during the Meeting held on 11.06.2020. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a communication dated 13.06.2020 for online verification by the Expert Visiting Committee [EVC] on 14.06.2020.

4. The 1st respondent, thereafter granted the Letter of Intent [LOI] on 15.06.2020 to the petitioner -College. The EVC submitted a Report, pointing out five deficiencies. It is the case of the petitioner -College that those deficiencies were rectified and represented to the SAC on 19.06.2020. The SAC by its communication dated 19.06.2020, pointed out three deficiencies. The deficiencies were [I]Copy of the advertisement in at least one National Daily, for recruitment of Principal/Director and Faculty Members not presented ; [II]Verification of computational facilities -Application S/W, System S/W, was in inadequate in number ; and [III] List and details of hard copy of journals subscribed, not furnished.

5. The petitioner -College, through its letter dated 24.06.2020, submitted a Compliance Report with all particulars to the AICTE, New Delhi. The petitioner - College also submitted its willingness to get the Letter of Approval [LOA] for starting 2 PG Programmes in the academic year 2020-21.

6. The SAC had submitted its Report on 30.06.2020, rejecting the LOA and recommending for Letter of Rejection [LOR] and consequently, the 1st respondent issued the LOR on 30.06.2020 and it was uploaded in the web portal on 02.07.2020.

7. The petitioner -College submitted an Appeal petition on 06.07.2020. It is the further case of the petitioner - College that the AICTE issued revised academic calendar for the academic year 2020-21 on 07.07.2020 on the revised guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission [UGC]. The petitioner -College was aggrieved by the fact that the LOR was issued by the 1st respondent even without verifying the Compliance Report submitted by the petitioner – College. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the LOR issued by the 1st respondent on 30.06.2020 and for consequential directions.

8. Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner -College submitted that the defects that were pointed out, were all curable defects and in fact, the deficiencies were cured and it was also intimated on 24.06.2020 to the AICTE. The 1st respondent, without referring the same, has proceeded to issue the LOR. The learned counsel submitted that this LOR issued by the 1st respondent is totally in violation of principles of natural justice since it was done even without providing an opportunity to the petitioner -College and even without verifying the fact as to whether the petitioner -College has already plugged the deficiencies.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner -College further submitted that the LOI that was issued on 15.06.2020, came to be communicated to the petitioner - College only on 30.06.2020 and it was further found in the web portal on 27.06.2020 that there were no overall deficiencies found insofar as the petitioner -College is concerned. While so, the LOR came to be issued by the 1st respondent on 30.06.2020 and it was uploaded only on 02.07.2020. The learned counsel therefore, submitted that the impugned LOR requires interference of this Court and the AICTE must be directed to make an inspection within the time frame specified by this Court and to verify as to whether the deficiencies have been rectified and if so, necessary directions must be given to the AICTE to grant LOA for starting the PG Programmes.

10. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The relevant portions in the counter-affidavit is extracted hereunder:-

“4. Subsequent thereto, since the institution intend to be started during the current academic year, an Expert Committee visit was conducted on 14.06.2020 and the Expert Visiting Committee filed a report noting deficiencies. Later on, in order to verify the compliance of deficiencies, the SAC was conducted on 19.06.2020. On that date, when the scrutiny by SAC was done since the committee was not satisfied with the reply given by the Institute and since they have not complied with the deficiencies, the Committee recommended for issue of Letter of Rejection.

5. With regard to the compliance submitted by the petitioner on 24.06.2020 and later on 27.06.2020, it is respectfully submitted that any compliance can be verified only by SAC and as per the provisions of Approval Process Hand Book. SAC was conducted on 19.06.2020 and since on the date of SAC, there are deficiencies in the Institution and hence LOR was issued.

6. I respectfully submit as far as the NIL deficiency mentioned in the Deficiencies Report, it is based on what the parent organization has filled in the application report and it is an online generated report on the basis of the documents which are required to be submitted online and the same has no consequence since after verification of the documents and inspection, deficiencies were found in the Institution and as such the letter of rejection was issued.”

11. Mrs.Al.Ganthimathi, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 brought to the notice of this Court, the Hand Book that provided for Approval Process for the year 2020-21. The learned Standing counsel, specifically placed reliance upon Clause 1.8 and submitted that applications which are found to have Nil deficiencies in the Expert Visit Committee only will be recommended for the issue of LOA and the rest will be recommended for the issue of LOR only. The learned Standing counsel submitted that the Committee constituted is an Expert Committee and the Report given by the Committee will be acted upon by the AICTE. If according to the petitioner -College, the deficiencies have been rectified, the AICTE should again place it before the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee will conduct necessary inspection and submit a Report. The learned counsel further submitted that even if it is found that the deficiencies have been rectified, the application submitted by the petitioner -College cannot be processed for the current academic year 2020-21 since the last date was over on 30.06.2020.

12. In reply to the submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner -College submitted that the Process Flowchart found in Annexure - V of the Hand Book provides for steps for grant of approval of courses by issuing LOI/LOR. The learned counsel submitted that as per the Flowchart, after SAC on 19.06.2020, there is a chance for EVC and another SAC before taking any decision. Even though the petitioner -College had submitted the Compliance Report on 24.06.2020, no steps were taken to scrutinise the same and to conduct an inspection. The learned counsel submitted that the SAC has even rejected what is accepted by the EVC and therefore, the same is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel, by placing reliance upon the Reply Affidavit dated 05.08.2020 filed by the petitioner -College, explained the manner in which the deficiencies were rectified by the petitioner -College and how the petitioner - College had fulfilled all the norms.

13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

14. There is no major controversy on the material facts in the present case. On a careful reading of the various documents, it is seen that three deficiencies [cited supra] were pointed out against the petitioner -College. The deficiencies pointed out are not major and it is found to be minor deficiencies which are capable of being cured. The manner in which the process is undertaken for grant of approval can be explained with the following Flowchart:-

“IMAGE”

15. The above Flowchart shows that the SAC submitted its Report on 19.06.2020. The three deficiencies that were pointed out were rectified according to the petitioner -College and a covering letter along with all particulars was submitted on 24.06.2020. This could have been verified by the EVC who had earlier issued the LOI on 15.06.2020. If the petitioner -College had rectified the defects, it could have been reported to SAC and SAC could have made an inspection and submitted a report. The reason why it is possible to do it within a short time is that the deficiencies are very minor in nature. If on re-inspection, if it is found that the deficiencies have not been rectified, automatically the LOR has to follow. However, the LOR came to be issued to the petitioner -College only based on the Report of the SAC on 19.06.2020. There was no consideration on the Compliance Report submitted by the petitioner -College on 24.06.2020.

16. In the considered view of this Court, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner -College is a very old Institution and is already providing various courses upto Doctorate level and the deficiencies are minor in nature, this Court deems it fit to give an opportunity to the petitioner -College to establish that the deficiencies have been rectified. It must be borne in mind that the deficiencies were rectified and informed on 24.06.2020 itself, much before the last date of processing the application.

17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned Letter of Rejection dated 30.06.2020 issued by the 1st respondent and accordingly, the same is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to immediately act upon the Compliance Report dated 24.06.2020 and place it

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

before the SAC and the SAC shall submit its Report within a period of one week to the 1st respondent. If in case the Report finds that the deficiencies have been rectified, the 1st respondent shall proceed to issue the LOA to the petitioner -College for the academic year 2020-21 for starting PG Programmes, viz., M.B.A., and M.C.A. This process shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this order cannot be taken as a precedent in any other case where the LOR has been issued and has not been challenged. This relief is granted on the peculiar facts of the present case and after noting a very vital fact that the petitioner -College had submitted the Compliance Report on 24.06.2020 itself and the same was not even considered when the LOR was issued on 30.06.2020 by the 1st respondent. That apart, it is found from the revised academic Calendar issued by the AICTE that the commencement of the courses has been postponed to a future date due to the prevailing pandemic situation and therefore, the directions issued by this Court will not unduly affect the commencement of the courses, if in case LOA is issued to the petitioner -College. 18. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-10-2020 UETC India Ltd., New Delhi Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-10-2020 M/s Sahara India Thru. Partner Om Prakash Srivastava & Another Versus U.O.I. Thru Secy. Ministry Of Labour, New Delhi & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
19-10-2020 G. Mahesh. & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
16-10-2020 A. Prasad & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
15-10-2020 Sheetal Tripathi & Others Versus U.O.I. Thru H.R.D. Ministry Higher Education Deptt. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
15-10-2020 K.R. Devadurai Versus The Director The Director of Technical Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-10-2020 Vikram Vilas Mane Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-10-2020 G. Ramesh Versus The Joint Director of Higher Education, Directorate of Government Examination, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-10-2020 T. Kavinraj Versus Union of India Represented by its Ministry of Human Resource and Development Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-10-2020 Kasthuribai Versus The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-10-2020 Vineet Ruia Versus Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of West Bengal and Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-10-2020 Emaar Mgf Land Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Gurpreet Gill National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-10-2020 Mahasemam Trust, A Public Trust, Rep. by its Trustee, Dr. Prabu Vairavan Prakasam Versus Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Finance Department, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-10-2020 Riddhima Singh Through: Her Father Shailendra Kumar Singh Versus Central Board Of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Delhi
12-10-2020 Naresh Kumar Sinha, Company Secretary, M/s Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Jeevan Bharti, New Delhi & Others Versus Union of India Rep. By The Labour Enforcement Officer Central Tripura West & Another High Court of Gauhati
09-10-2020 Meethelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporation Affairs, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2020 New Delhi Municipal Council Versus Hari Ram Tiwari High Court of Delhi
09-10-2020 Dr. B.S. Ravikumar Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Collegiate Education), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-10-2020 M/s. Wizard Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager, Mumbai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-10-2020 Mala Sahni Seth Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-10-2020 A. Kumar Versus Financial Intelligence Unit – India, New Delhi & Another Versius Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-10-2020 Alwin Martin, Sweeper, St.Mary's High School, Coimbatore & Another Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 Rikhab Jain Versus M/S. Trackon Couriers Private Limited, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-10-2020 Parul Majumdar Laskar & Others Versus The Union of India to Be Rep. By The Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
05-10-2020 Tarun Kanti Chowdhury & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Bayer New Zealand Limited Versus Ministry For Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd. G-III, Amar Palace, Panchsheel Square, Dhantoli, Nagpur Versus Union of India Through its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shramshakti Bhavan, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-09-2020 Lalatendu Nayak & Another Versus Supertech Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust, Established & Namakkal Represented by Chairman, V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary Cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Vinkem Labs Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Perumal & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 M/s. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Calicut, Represented by Its Manager Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
25-09-2020 Rhonpal Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus New Delhi Municipal Council & Others High Court of Delhi
23-09-2020 C.M. Gadha & Another Versus Bar Council of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 The Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), Chennai & Others Versus A. Inpavalli & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar Paryayi Versus The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-09-2020 P.S. Dilip Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
21-09-2020 Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Dr. B. Chandrashekara Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Education Department (Collegiate Education), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Versus Shanthamma & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Guptasons Jewellers & Gems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-09-2020 Dr. Battepati C. Narasimhulu Versus The Director of Medical Education High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-09-2020 Advocate Thoufeek Ahamed Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary (Justice), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2020 Katherine Anne Starr Phillips Versus New Zealand Police Court of Appeal of New Zealand
15-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager Versus Girija & Another High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through The Regional Manager, New Delhi Versus Dinesh Vijay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-09-2020 Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, Rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin Versus The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
09-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Represented by Its Manager, Calicut Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
09-09-2020 R. Bharaneeswaran Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Jai Bharath College of Management & Engineering Technology, Rep. by Its Chairman, Ernakulam & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The Dental Council of India, Aiwan-E-Galib Marg, New Delhi Versus PSR Lakhmi Bhuvaneshwari Preethi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Karaikudi Versus Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-09-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Somwati & Others Supreme Court of India
04-09-2020 Shridhar Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education (Technical Education), Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
04-09-2020 Y. Devadas Versus State of Telangana, Rep., by Special Chief Secretary, Education Dept., Government of Telangana & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Preeti Rathod & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education (Technical Education), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Hyundai Motor India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Harshad Ramji Chauhan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2020 M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore Versus M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust Established and Administering, Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research, Rep. by Chairman V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 New Negendra Lorry Transport Versus M/s. Telangana Foods a Government of Telangana Enterprises & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-08-2020 The Correspondent, Sacred Heart Girls Higher Secondary School, Virudhunagar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
31-08-2020 M/s. Omaxe Limited, New Delhi & Another Versus Divya Karun & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
28-08-2020 Inter Gold India Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2020 Renu Gupta Versus Ram Pal Singh, Basic Education Officer & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-08-2020 Phatik Sonowal Versus State Of Assam Rep. By The Comm. & Secy. To The Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary), Gauhati & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Poornachandrakala Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Collegiate Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-08-2020 Davinder Nath Sethi & Another Versus M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2020 Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Represented by its Vicepresident (Legal) Ch. Viswanath Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
26-08-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Versus Maninderjeet Singh Khera National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-08-2020 Gopal Krishna Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare Development, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-08-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Villupuram Versus J. Manimaran & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2020 P. Meenakshi Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
24-08-2020 Sanjay Nayyar Versus State of NCT Delhi, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 R.K. Dawra Versus Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
24-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Singhla Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 Sheela & Others Versus The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2020 Suresh Kumar Banjare Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Education, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-08-2020 Pankaj Chaudhary, HCS, Special Secretary, Public Health Engineer Department Versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
21-08-2020 Dr. Parimal Roy, Working as Director, Indian Council of Agricultural Research NIVEDI Versus The President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
19-08-2020 Babubhai Bhagvanji Tandel Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 V.K. Somarajan Pillai Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Govt. of India, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
19-08-2020 Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research & Another Versus Arun Kumar Jain & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-08-2020 Vijay Cotton & Fibre Co., Maharashtra Versus New India Insurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC