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



Shifa Khairun v/s The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to the Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- REP CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26921TN2005PTC055138

Company & Directors' Information:- S. O. HEALTH CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TG2017PTC119704

Company & Directors' Information:- SHIFA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80301KA1984PTC005914

Company & Directors' Information:- V-FAMILY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090MP2020PTC051385

Company & Directors' Information:- WELFARE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74999WB1946PTC014414

Company & Directors' Information:- E-HEALTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110DL2001PTC113461

Company & Directors' Information:- HEALTH & WELFARE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U85110WB1954PTC021479

    WP No. 11530 of 2020 & WMP Nos. 14097 & 14099 of 2020

    Decided On, 28 August 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

    For the Petitioner: N.L. Rajah, Senior counsel assisted by Naveen Kumar Murthi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, E. Balamurugan, Spl.GP, R2, Vijaymehanath, R3 & R5, V.P. Raman, R4, Rajesh Vivekanandan, Advocates.



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 of the impugned “Prospectus for admission to post graduate degree/diploma courses in Management Quota including NRI of Self Financing Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu 2020-2021 Session as per G.O.[D] No.319, Health and Family Wealth [MCA-1] Department dated 11.03.2020 and as amended from time to time” dated 12.03.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same insofar as it stipulates a last date for submission of application by the petitioner and direct the 2nd respondent to allot a seat to the petitioner in NEET-PG 2020 if found eligible.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Prospectus issued by the 2nd respondent for admission to Post Graduate Degree / Diploma Courses, insofar as it stipulates a last date for submission of application and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to allot a seat to the petitioner if found eligible.

2. The petitioner completed her MBBS Course and has registered herself before the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. The petitioner belongs to Muslim “Labbai class” which is treated as a “Backward Community” by the State Government.

3. The petitioner participated in the NEET Examination and secured 250 marks. The petitioner applied for NEET-PG under “General Category”. The cut-off mark for “General Category” was fixed as 366 marks and for the “Other Backward Class [OBC] Category”, it was fixed as 319 marks. The petitioner did not fall within the cut-off marks during the first and second round of the counseling conducted by the National Board of Examination [NBE], New Delhi. This pertains to the counseling under the Central quota.

4. The cut-off marks was reduced during the mop-up round for General candidates from 366 marks to 275 marks and for OBC candidates from 319 marks to 230 marks.

5. At this point of time, the petitioner realised that even though she belongs to “OBC Category”, she had wrongly mentioned in the application form that she belongs to “General Category”. The petitioner immediately approached this Court and filed WP.No.9838 of 2020 to direct the NBE to permit the petitioner to participate in the mop up round counseling as an OBC candidate. The final order passed by this Court in WP.No.9838 of 2020, dated 27.07.2020 is extracted hereunder:-

“11. It is clear from the above judgments that this Court has taken a consistent view in matters of this nature where it is found that a inadvertent mistake has been committed by a candidate while filling the application. This Court does not want to take a different view and rather, will fall in line with the earlier views expressed by this Court.

12. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(a) The 2nd respondent is directed to place the petitioner at the bottom of the merit list meant for Other Backward Class community candidates who have been called for the counseling for the Post Graduation course.

(b) After filling up the seats based on the merit list already prepared in respect of Other Backward Class candidates, if any vacancies arise, the case of the petitioner shall be considered by treating him as an Other Backward Class candidate, provided that the petitioner satisfies all the requirements, and

(c) The candidates who are already shown in the Other Backward Class category in the merit list shall not be disturbed in any manner by the intervention of the petitioner, who is directed to be considered as an Other Backward Class candidate. No costs.”

6. The petitioner participated in the said counseling and she was not able to get any seat under the Central quota.

7. Insofar as the State quota is concerned, a separate Prospectus is issued by the 2nd respondent and a candidate has to separately apply under this quota. The applications were received on-line from 15.07.2020 to 18.07.2020 and the petitioner, admittedly did not apply through on-line.

8. The petitioner has again approached this Court, challenging the Prospectus insofar it stipulates last date for submission of application and the petitioner has sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent to permit her to participate under BCM quota. The petitioner wants to participate in the mop up round for the management quota seats.

9. Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent has issued a tentative counseling schedule for admission to PG Degree / Diploma courses 2020-21 only for BCM, SCA and ST candidates. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioner is a BCM candidate and she is not permitted to participate in the mop up counseling since the petitioner did not apply under the State quota on-line within the stipulated time. He would further submit that even though the petitioner should have submitted the on-line application on or before 18.07.2020, the petitioner was not sure about the submission of such an application as a BCM candidate since she had applied under the “General Category” in the Central quota. The status of the petitioner to participate as a OBC candidate was recognised by this Court only when an order was passed on 27.07.2020 and by then, the last date for submission of application under the State quota was over.

10. The learned Senior counsel, by bringing to the notice of this Court some of the terms and conditions of the Prospectus submitted that the petitioner was apprehensive to apply as a BC candidate in the State quota since it may be construed as a misrepresentation and there was a risk of the petitioner not being permitted to apply for the course for two subsequent years. It is only due to this apprehension, the petitioner did not submit the on-line application for the State quota on or before 18.07.2020.

11. The learned Senior counsel, by bringing to the notice of this Court certain judgments, submitted that the failure on the part of the petitioner to register on-line within the due date is a condonable lapse and therefore, in the interest of justice, the petitioner can be permitted to participate in the mop up counseling under the State quota as a BCM candidate. The judgments relied on by the learned Senior counsel is enlisted hereunder:-

* Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 28.07.2017 in Nancy Yadav V. Rajasthan University for Health Sciences, Prathap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, through its Registrar and 2 others.

* Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Maa Gayatri Private Industrial Training Institute and Another Vs. State of U.P and 3 others reported in 2016 SCC on-line All 1597.

* Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Kavita Choudhary v. The Registrar [Examination], Rajasthan High Court, Jodhput and Another reported in 2017 SCC on-line Raj 3612.

12. Per contra, Mr.Vijaymehanath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submitted that the claim made by the petitioner is totally unsustainable. The learned counsel submitted that the submission of an application under the State quota is an independent act which has nothing to do with the application made by the petitioner under the Central quota. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner ought to have applied for the State quota as a BCM candidate on or before 18.07.2020. Once the petitioner lost this opportunity, she cannot be accommodated at a later point of time. The learned counsel submitted that if such applications are entertained, it will open flood gates and the authorities will have to completely rework the list that has already been prepared for the mop up counseling. He would further submit that there is absolutely no justification on the part of the petitioner to rush to this Court at the last moment and seek for a permission to participate in the mop up counseling even without submitting an application to participate in the counseling. The learned counsel, therefore, sought for dismissal of this writ petition.

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

14. The petitioner is a qualified Doctor who is aged about 25 years and therefore, she is expected to act with alacrity while submitting applications on-line. We are living in an Era where almost all the applications are submitted on-line and submission of application in its physical form is almost coming to an end. Of course, the present generation has already become well acquainted in participating in various selections by submitting applications on-line.

15. The petitioner seems to have a pattern to commit one mistake after another and every time she expects this Court to condone the same and allow her to participate in the selection. The first mistake that was committed by the petitioner was at the time when she applied before NBE under the “General Category”. The marks secured by the petitioner in the NEET Examination was nowhere near the cut-off marks, both under the “General Category” as well as under the “OBC Category”. This was the status during the first two rounds of counseling under the Central quota.

16. The cut-off marks for the mop up round was reduced for “General Category” candidates, from 366 marks to 275 marks and for “OBC Category” candidates, from 319 marks to 230 marks. At this point of time, the petitioner realises that she had applied under the “General Category” and not under “OBC Category”. If the petitioner had applied under the “OBC Category”, she would have come within the cut-off marks. Therefore, she immediately approached this Court and sought for the permission to participate in the mop up round counseling.

17. At that point of time, apart from the petitioner, there were several others who also approached this Court and sought for a similar direction. This Court, after considering the earlier orders passed by this Court, thought it fit to give one last opportunity to the petitioner and other similarly placed persons to participate as an OBC Candidate. The directions issued by this Court has been extracted supra.

18. The petitioner was allowed to participate as an OBC Candidate and she did not get the seat in the Central quota.

19. Each candidate who undergo the selection for the PG Course, is aware of the fact that he/she must apply for the Central quota and the State quota separately. The petitioner was also clearly aware about the same. However, the petitioner, for reasons best known to her, did not submit the on-line application on or before the due date, i.e., 18.07.2020. Based on the applications submitted under the State quota, steps have been taken by the 2nd respondent to prepare the list and call the candidates for counseling.

20. The petitioner having failed to get a seat under the Central quota, again thought it fit to approach this Court to give a try to participate in the selection under the State quota, even without submitting an application. The justification given by the petitioner for not submitting the on-line application on or before 18.07.2020, is that the order was passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition permitting the petitioner to participate as an OBC candidate, only on 27.07.2020. It is important to bear in mind that this Court did not declare the petitioner to belongs to the OBC Category for the first time and this Court only recognised the fact that the petitioner, even though belonging to the OBC Category, by mistake applied under the “General Category”. The order passed by this Court on 27.07.2020 had nothing to do with the petitioner independently applying under the State quota by submitting the application on or before 18.07.2020. The attempt made by the petitioner to link the order passed by this Court on 27.07.2020 and the submission of the application under the State quota on or before 18.07.2020, is completely erroneous and unsustainable. The so-called apprehensions in the mind of the petitioner, as submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is totally misconceived.

21. The petitioner has also made an attempt to take advantage of paragraph No.5 of the earlier order. For proper appreciation, paragraph No.5 is extracted hereunder:-

“5. Mr.Akhil Akbarali, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, submitted that the petitioner has also applied under the State quota and she is being considered as a BC candidate. Mr. Vijaymehanath, who is also appearing for the Selection Committee of Directorate of Medical Education reiterated the said submission”

22. This observation was made on the supposition that the petitioner applied under the State quota. However, it is an admitted case that the petitioner did not apply for the State quota on or before 18.07.2020. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the above observation made

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

by this Court. 23. The 2nd respondent has already prepared the list of candidates who will participate in the counseling to be conducted and if the petitioner is allowed to participate at this stage, under the BCM Category, it will amount to giving premium for the mistake committed by the petitioner. That apart, the 2nd respondent has to completely re-do the list to accommodate the petitioner. It will not be fair to put the 2nd respondent to hardship for the mistake committed by the petitioner. That apart, permitting the petitioner to participate in the counseling even without submitting an application, will open flood gates. This Court cannot, again and again come to the rescue of the petitioner at every stage and at some stage, the petitioner must be made to realise her mistakes so that she does not commit such mistakes in future. The judgments cited by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner will not apply to the facts of the present case and those directions were given considering the peculiar facts in those cases. In the facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and permit the petitioner to participate in the counseling under the State quota even without submitting the on-line application. 24. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

08-10-2020 C. Rajakumari & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Industries (MIA), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-10-2020 M/s. Thamraparni Enterprises, Rep. by its Partner K.S. Sundaram Versus M/s. Simpson and Company Ltd., Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 State of kerala, Rep. by Tahsildar, Kothamangalam Versus The Secretary, Nirmalgram Vannith Dairy Central Society Keerampara, Kothamangalam & Others High Court of Kerala
05-10-2020 A. Mohammed Ataulla & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by the SPP, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
05-10-2020 M/s. CEE DEE Yes IT Parks Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Chennai Versus The Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Supervision, Represented by its Chief General manager-in-charge, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Naveen Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
29-09-2020 Yashwanth @ Yashavant Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
28-09-2020 S. Akhil & Another Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Thycaud & Others High Court of Kerala
25-09-2020 Mallappa & Another Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
25-09-2020 Dr. P. Vijila Versus The Secretary to Government Health & Family Welfare Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2020 Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, (Presently NLC India Limited), Rep. by its General Manager (Contracts) Corporate Office, Neyveli Versus M/s. TENOVA India Pvt. Ltd., Alwarpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2020 Raghavan & Another Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-09-2020 M. Premila Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Represented By its Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2020 Yogesh Agarwal & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. herein by: The Investigation Officer Cyber Crime Police Station (CID), Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 Nagalakshmi (died) & Another Versus Sivaprakasam, Rep.by his Power Agent and his wife Senthamil Selvi High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Rajegowda @ Guruswamy & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 Tousif Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
23-09-2020 Maharudragouda Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Ranebennur Town Police, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
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 Heer A. Rajani, Rep. by her Power of Attorney Amit M. Rajani Versus M.M. Syed Sikkander, Proprietor: M/s. Syed Bearing Centre, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Ramesh Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
21-09-2020 Shivanand Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary Dept. of Revenue, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Jantra Wanida & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Yellappa Versus The Management of NWKRTC, Rep. by its Divisional Controller, Gadag High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
19-09-2020 National Investigation Agency Chikoti Garden, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by A.G. Kaiser Versus Vinay Talekar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-09-2020 M/s. Standard Metalloys Private Limited, through its Authorised Signatory Sumit Tripathi Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-09-2020 B. Ramamoorthy & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Thankappan Pillai Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
17-09-2020 Mahasamy Versus Minor Prakash, Rep. By his father & natural guardian Rajendran, Tiruppur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2020 Vangamudi Kasimayan, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., rep PP. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-09-2020 Anandi Versus State, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
16-09-2020 K.V. Xavier & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
16-09-2020 R. Pradeep Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 Makdum @ Makdum Shariff Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by HCGP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 P.C. Latha & Others Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
14-09-2020 Kuruva Muliniti Lakshmana, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., Rep. PP. Hyd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
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 Sapna Chouhan & Another Versus State, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its President, Kanchipuram Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its Senior Manager(Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-09-2020 Zameer Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
11-09-2020 B.S. Yediyurappa Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2020 Shyam Investments, Rep. by its Partner Nina Reddy & Another Versus Masti Health & Beauty Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 Amarendra Bhagawati Versus The State of Assam Rep. By The Comm. & Secy., Deptt. of Excise, Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Ghy.-06 & Others High Court of Gauhati
11-09-2020 Mukund Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2020 M/s. S.M. Cement Industries Rep. By One of Its Partners Namely, Manoj Sureka, Assam Versus Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-09-2020 Punitha Versus State by Turuvekere Police Turuvekere, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
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
10-09-2020 A. Sudharani Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
10-09-2020 Devendra Prasad Boda & Others Versus Director, Pension & Pensioner Welfare Dept., Jaipur (Raj.) & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
10-09-2020 G. Chitra Poornima & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by Under Secretary Revenue Department & Others High Court of Karnataka
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
09-09-2020 Santosh @ Sada Mahadev Chand Rakodi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
09-09-2020 Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service, Rep. by its Authorized Representative J. Anjananandan Versus The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Collector of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam Versus Janaki 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
07-09-2020 Sir Venkatramanaswamy Blue Metals, Rep by its Managing Partner, M. Sivanandam & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Karur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai Versus P. Muthian High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Vaibhav Ulhas Naik Versus Caste Scrutiny Committee, Directorate of Social Welfare, Government of Goa & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
04-09-2020 K. Ebnezer Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 K. Ravi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Labour & Employment, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Saluvadi Sumalatha Versus The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (TREI-RB) rep., by its, Executive Officer (Convenor) & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Alfadul Sobhi & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
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 Natarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Govt. Dept. of Municipal Admin & Water Supply, City V, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
03-09-2020 M/s. Khushee Construction through its Power of Attorney Holder, Patna Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-09-2020 Meharaj @ Meharaj Begum Versus State by K.G. Halli P.S., Rep. by Government Pleader High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 Taba Tagar Versus The State of Arunachal Pradesh Rep. By Its Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh & Others High Court of Gauhati
03-09-2020 Kothapalli Govinda Rajulu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
03-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai. Another Versus S. Manikandan High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 M. Ravi & Others Versus State by Vishwanathapura P.S., Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 Yedla Babulu & Others Versus State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (J.A & L.A), T.S. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-09-2020 F. Srilekha & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by S.P.P., Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 Philip Stephen Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 G.C. Kishor Kumar Versus Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Arani Versus Raja & Others 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
01-09-2020 Vazhuvoor Ravi Versus The State of TamilNadu, Rep.by the Chief Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 M/s. AAF India Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Jagruti Mursenia Versus M/s. KBR Industries, Represented by its Partner High Court of Karnataka
31-08-2020 M/s. Kaveri Associates, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Rishabchand Bhansali Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(1), Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2020 Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd., Rep.by its Authorized Signatory R. Eswaran Versus The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 Chandan @ Abcd Chandan Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor, Benglauru High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2020 Ponnayal & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Additional Chief Secretary, Highways & Minor Ports Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 M/s. Anish Orchardes Private Ltd. Rep. by its Director S. Bhavani & Others Versus The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras as Provisional Liquidator of Maxworth Orchards (India) Ltd. Orchards (India) Ltd. Rep. by Administrator K. Alagiriswami & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Dr. Samjaison Versus The Deputy Director of Health Services, Ramanathapuram & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
28-08-2020 K.V. Sayan & Another Versus The State rep. By Inspector of Police, Kotagiri Police Station, The Nilgiris & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 Karnataka Professional Colleges Foundation Rep. by its Secretary R.V. Govinda Rao & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
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 Mohammed Anees Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
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
27-08-2020 Bhimsen Tyagi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government (Poll), Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-08-2020 Praveena @ Itachi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Kamakshipalya Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka