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



Shreyas Sinha v/s The West Bengal National University Of Juridical Sciences & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- SHREYA'S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102RJ1997PTC013539

Company & Directors' Information:- WEST COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34203MH1995PTC092297

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1917PLC002781

Company & Directors' Information:- D N SINHA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1958PTC023794

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000PN2014PTC153230

Company & Directors' Information:- SINHA & COMPANY PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U17299WB1989PTC047322

Company & Directors' Information:- M L SINHA & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1945PTC012778

Company & Directors' Information:- S P SINHA & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1974PTC029681

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CORPORATION PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909PB1942PTC000480

Company & Directors' Information:- SHREYAS CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24248GJ2013PTC076437

Company & Directors' Information:- WEST INDIA COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1945PTC004516

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1950PLC009913

    Civil Appeal No. 3085 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1283 of 2020)

    Decided On, 09 September 2020

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

    For the Appellant: Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate, Anand Varma, Abhishek Prasad, Dhairya Madan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Vinayak Mehrotra, Amit Agrawal, Kushagra Agrawal, Radhika Yadav, Kunal Chatterji, Maitrayee Banerjee, Pravar Veer Misra, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Hemant Gupta, J.

The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 23rd December, 2019 whereby an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22nd July, 2019 was dismissed.

2. The appellant had sought admission to the five-year law course offered by the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (for short, 'University') on the basis of the amendment in the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act') vide the Amending Act which came into force on 21st May, 2019. Such Amending Act inter alia provided for reservation of seats for students domiciled in the State of West Bengal to the extent of at least thirty percent of the total intake of the University. The Amending Act reads as such:

"1. (1) This Act may be called The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (Amendment) Act, 2018.

(2) It shall come into force at once.

2. In the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences Act, 1999, after section 4, the following sections shall be inserted:-

4A. (1) The tuition fees in the University shall be such as may be determined by the State Government from time to time.

(2) The University shall allow free-ship in tuition fees to at least five per centum of their total strength to the students belonging to poor and economically backward classes.

Note.- The relevant criteria for determining poor and economically backward class shall be such as may be determined by the State Government from time to time.

(3) The University shall compulsorily make provision for reservation of seats for the students domiciled in the State of West Bengal to the extent of at least thirty percent of the total intake in the University.

4B. (1) Admission of the student in the University shall be made on the basis of merit.

(2) Merit for admission in the University may be determined either on the basis of marks or grade obtained in the qualifying examination or on the basis of marks or grade obtained in a relevant entrance examination conducted by the University or by Common Entrance Test conducted at the State or National level."

3. An advertisement was published on 5th January 2019 by a consortium of 21 National Law Universities in the country to conduct Common Law Admission Test (for short, 'CLAT) on 12th May 2019 for which the last date of submission of application forms was 31st March 2019. The under-graduate admissions process herein provided for a choice of institution to the candidate, in which such candidate was willing to seek admission based on merit. The date of CLAT was later changed to 26th May 2019 in which the appellant participated and was ranked 731 in the All India Merit List, declared on 14th June 2019. As per the merit list and his choice, he was selected to get admission in National Law University, Odisha but admittedly, he did not join such institution.

4. The University had issued a Brochure to fill up 127 seats based on CLAT merit list. As per the Brochure, 74 seats were meant for general category candidates and 10 seats for West Bengal domiciled candidates including 4 seats for general category.

5. The grievance of the appellant is that 30% of the seats were reserved for the students domiciled in the State of West Bengal when the Act was amended on 21st May 2019. The Act had come into force before CLAT was conducted, but the benefit of reservation had not been extended to the students by the University in the Academic Session 2019-2020.

6. The stand of the University before the Learned Single Judge was that the consortium conducts the CLAT examination for admission of students from all over the country. The seat matrix as well as the general information about the said examination was uploaded on the website in January, 2019. The table towards the total allocation of seats across the categories was incorporated in the information uploaded. All the seats in the Domicile category of West Bengal have been filled up, whereas, for the remaining vacant seats, the candidates in terms of the rank have been asked to confirm their acceptance. The last candidate who would be admitted in the General Category has rank 262, whereas the rank of the appellant is 731. It was also contended that the Amending Act is prospective and cannot be made applicable in respect of the admission process which has already commenced from January 2019. The elaborate exercise of admission was started before the Amending Act came into force and the students had given their option for admission based on choices of National Law Universities available.

7. The learned Single Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition inter-alia holding that the Amending Act is prospective. The rank of the last candidate admitted from the General Category is 262 whereas the rank of the appellant is 731. In terms of the Amending Act, 34 seats are, thus, reserved for the candidates domiciled in the State of West Bengal being 30% of the total intake. Such seats have to be taken away from the unreserved category and added to the domiciled category. It would disrupt the entire admission process. The candidates who have already been allotted seats in different Universities all over the country as per the option would be seriously prejudiced.

8. In the appeal, before the Division Bench of the High Court, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the University, and it stated that the first round of admission was completed on 4th July, 2019 and thereafter the last vacant seats were allotted on 23rd July, 2019. The University has attached the resolution of the Executive Council of the University on 10th August 2019 based on the recommendation of the Academic Council of the University on 27th July 2019. It was decided that the benefit of reservation in terms of the Amending Act would be given from the next Academic Year i.e. 2020-2021.

9. The Division Bench affirmed the findings recorded by the Single Bench, holding that the Amending Act is prospective and all seats under the West Bengal domiciled category have already been filled up so as to prevent students of domiciled in Bengal to migrate to other States. It was held that sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Amending Act makes it clear that the reservation provided to candidates to apply for CLAT is for the session starting after the law comes into force. It also held that the test of reasonableness and fairness has not been compromised in any manner by the University. The Court held that the Amending Act has come into force after the admission process was started, therefore, such Amending Act would amount to changing the rules of the game after the start of the admission process.

10. In the Special Leave Petition against the Order passed by the High Court, the show cause was issued limited to the question as to whether the appellant can be accommodated for admission to the University for the year 2020-2021.

11. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that since the Amending Act came into force at once, the University was bound to provide reservation to students who are domiciles of West Bengal. As the test was held after the Amending Act came into force on 21st May 2019, the action of the University in not granting benefit of domicile to the appellant was unwarranted, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Amending Act. It was also argued that the appellant was the only candidate who had sought admission against the seats meant for West Bengal domiciled candidates, therefore, he should be admitted dehors the merit list. Learned senior counsel for the appellant relied upon the direction (iii) in the judgment of this Court reported in S. Krishna Sradha vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1609 to contend that if a meritorious candidate has been denied admission for no fault of the candidate, for the reason that the cut-off date has passed, such candidate is entitled to be admitted in the next session, if the candidate has approached the Court at the earliest and without any delay. The court can direct the admission to such a candidate in the next academic year by directing to increase in the number of seats and if it is found that the management was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, the Court may direct to reduce the number of seats in the management quota.

12. The Judgment in Anupal Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 173 was relied upon to contend that the Amending Act does not amount to changing the rules of the game after the commencement of the selection process.

13. On the other hand, Mr. Chatterji, learned counsel appearing for the University contended that the last candidate admitted in the category of domicile students in the West Bengal against the existing quota of 10 was at merit rank No. 356, whereas, the rank of the appellant is No. 731. The decision of the Executive Council of the University was in terms of the Amending Act as the University resolved to provide compulsory reservation in view of the fact that the admission process had already been started and the option of the candidates to seek admission in the various National Law Universities had already been given. Any change in the choice of admission would not be possible at such a stage because of the large number of candidates taking CLAT. Therefore, the University had decided to give the benefit of reservation in terms of the Amending Act from the next Academic Year. It was argued that even if the option for domicile for West Bengal candidates was made available to the appellant, still, he would only have a remote chance of getting admission in the University keeping his rank in the merit list.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment of this Court in P. Bhima Reddy vs. State of Mysore & Ors., (1969) 1 SCC 68 to contend the expression commencement of the Amending Act "at once" means within a reasonable time after the commencement of the Act. The decision of the Executive Council of the University was taken within a reasonable time and cannot be said to be arbitrary as the admission process was initiated before the Amending Act came into force. Therefore, it was not possible to give effect to the provisions of the Act from the Academic Session 2019-2020. Thus, the action of the University to grant the benefit of the Amending Act from the next academic session cannot be said to be unreasonable and is a possible decision in terms of the Amending Act.

15. The Bill for amending the Act was tabled on 16th November, 2018. The same came to be approved and published in the State Government Gazette on 21st May 2019. The Amending Act comes into force at once i.e. on 21st May 2019 but there is no provision in the Amending Act that it will apply to the on-going admission process. The University was mandated to provide compulsory reservation of seats to the extent of at least 30% of the total intake in the University but the year from which the said admission was to be reserved was not prescribed in the statute. The Academic Council of the University in its 36th meeting held on 27th July, 2019 resolved that 30% reservation for West Bengal domiciles will be implemented from the next Academic Year. Such decision of the Academic Council was approved by the Executive Council of the University on 10th August, 2019.

16. The total seats at the University are 127 including the seats meant for State domicile candidates prior to the amendment. The additional seats reserved were required to be provided at the time of initiation of the admission process which started in January, 2019. Each of the candidates intending to appear in the CLAT is required to give three choices for admission into the National Law Universities. The candidates had given these choices keeping in view the reservation policy of each State. Since the reservation policy of 30% seats was not available on the date when the admission process was initiated, the decision of the University to provide reservation from the next Academic Year cannot be said to be contradictory to the provisions of the Amending Act. The Act is silent in respect of Academic Year in which the benefit of reservation is to be given. The candidates have already applied and given an option for admission in the various National Law Universities before the coming into force of the Amending Act. Therefore, the University extended the benefit of the reservation from the next Academic Session. We find such decision to be fair, reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious.

17. None of the judgments referred to by Mr. Vikas Singh are helpful to the arguments raised. In Anupal Singh's case, the challenge was to the bifurcation of vacancies in the cadre of subordinate agricultural service in the State of Uttar Pradesh on the ground that it amounts to changing of the rules of the game in the middle of the selection process. However, the bifurcation of seats amongst the different categories was due to the wrong calculation of seats as per the statutory provisions. It was held that such an amendment in the bifurcation of seats did not amount to change of rules of the game as it was necessitated on account of a mistaken calculation of seats in terms of the provisions of the statute.

18. S. Krishna Sradha's case is applicable only if a meritorious candidate has been denied admission. In the present case, the appellant cannot be said to be a meritorious candidate in the Academic Session 2019-2020. The benefit of reservation had been extended to the cand

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

idates by the Universities from the next Academic Session i.e. 2020-2021. Since there is no mandate in the Amending Act to grant the benefit of reservation in the Academic Year 2019-2020, therefore, the University keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances has rightly held that the benefit of reservation would be extended from the next academic year as the admission process had already been initiated before coming into force of the Amending Act. 19. We also find that the judgment referred to by Mr. Chatterji is not helpful to the arguments raised. The case pertained to a successful tenderer who was not granted a license because he had failed to furnish a statement of immovable properties and to furnish certain sureties as required by the Rules prescribed. It was in these circumstances, the Court held that the expression "at once" has to be interpreted as to be within a reasonable time. However, the Amending Act in the present case came into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. Since the Amending Act does not contemplate that the benefit of reservation has to be granted in the ongoing academic session, therefore, the University was at liberty to decide to extend the benefit from the next academic session. 20. We do not find any error in the findings recorded by the High Court or that this decision of the University contravenes the provisions of the Amending Act, which may warrant interference in the present appeal. The appeal is, thus, dismissed with no order as to cost.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

07-10-2020 West Haryana Highways Projects Private Limited Versus National Highways Authority of India & Others High Court of Delhi
29-09-2020 National Highways Authority of India Versus Sahakar Global Limited High Court of Delhi
29-09-2020 Mangala & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited, (Ori. Respondent) Through its Manager In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Yuraj Yadu Sawant & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Yuraj Yadu Sawant & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
28-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Panaji, Goa, Now Represented by its Regional Manager, Bengaluru Versus Imran Khan & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-09-2020 The Managing Director, KSRTC, Central Offices, Represented by its Divisional Controller, Mangaluru Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another High Court of Karnataka
25-09-2020 Indusind Bank Ltd., West Bengal Versus Kalpana Roy Sarkar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-09-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
22-09-2020 National Alliance For People's Movements & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
21-09-2020 Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla & Another Versus National Law School of India University, Bengaluru & Others Supreme Court of India
21-09-2020 Tvl. Kousic Co Blue Metals, Represented by its Managing Director, K.G.Mohanraj, SF, 561/C2, Kolanthan Palayam, Versus The State Tax Officer, Karur West Assessment Circle, Karur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chitradurga & Others Versus D. Mallappa & Another High Court of Karnataka
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 Heinz India Private Limited Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-09-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, Puducherry Versus Ulagaratchagan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
03-09-2020 State of West Bengal & Others Versus Anirban Ghosh & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited, Raipur Versus Khorin Bai Sori & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited, Raipur Versus Khorin Bai Sori & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
02-09-2020 Diwan Chand Goyal Versus National Capital Region Transport Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
01-09-2020 Indian National Trust For Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) Patna Chapter, through its Convener Sri Jatindra Kumar Lall, Patna, Bihar Versus The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Patna, Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Ashwani Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
27-08-2020 National Highway Authority of India Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
27-08-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
27-08-2020 IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollway Private Limited Versus National Highways Authority of India High Court of Delhi
26-08-2020 Trisha Bhattacharjee Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-08-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Chhattisgarh Versus Indra Bai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-08-2020 Sharad Kumar Singh & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-08-2020 M/s. Narmada Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Pramod Gendre, Chhattisgarh Versus Punjab National Bank Through Its Chief Manager, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-08-2020 National Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Uttar Pardesh & Another Versus M/s. Khandelwal Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Kallol Mukherjee Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-08-2020 Rahul Manna Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-08-2020 The Divisional Manager, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore Versus Paneerselvam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 National Insurance Company Ltd., Third Floor, No.751, Anna Salai, Chennai Versus Vijaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 GMR Hyderabad Vijayawada Expressways Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus National Highways Authority of India & Another High Court of Delhi
04-08-2020 P. Anil Kumar @ Chempazhanthi Anil & Others Versus The Indian Red Cross Society, Represented by Its Secretary General, National IRCS, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
04-08-2020 Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-08-2020 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office II, Salem Versus. Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-07-2020 Dr. Uma Suresh Versus The Authorised Officer, The National Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-07-2020 Punjab National Bank, Guwahati Versus Madhab Kumar Das & Another & Others High Court of Gauhati
24-07-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus M/s. D.D Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Panipat National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Vineet Ruia Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-07-2020 Dr. Bikram Panda Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-07-2020 SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., West Bengal Versus Kajari Gayen & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 M/s. SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt. Ltd., Haryana Versus Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, West Bengal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuddalorre Versus B. Muthusamy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2020 Edelweiss Broking Limited Versus National Stock Exchange of India Limited SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
16-07-2020 Hi-Tech Pipes Ltd. Versus National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
15-07-2020 Nikhil Singhvi Versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
14-07-2020 The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India Versus Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Others Supreme Court of India
14-07-2020 Srabani Chatterjee & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-07-2020 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Erode Versis Baby & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2020 Souvik Sardar & Others The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus A. Badurinssa & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-07-2020 Safikul Islam & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-07-2020 BSA Citi Courier Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax Delhi West & Another High Court of Delhi
30-06-2020 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Jaipur & Others Versus Manju Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-06-2020 Dr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-06-2020 Brijendra Kumar Singh Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-06-2020 Amit Kumar Sinha Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
25-06-2020 Mazidul Miah @ Mia & Others Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-06-2020 M/s. Goodwill Leather Art Rep By its Prop Md Quddus ALi Alias Md Quddus Ali Molla Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 TUCI, West Bengal State Secretary, Represented by itsSecretary, Sharmistha Choudhury & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Shyamal Middya Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-06-2020 Ram Avtar Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 The State of West Bengal & Others Versus Soroj Kumar Mondal & Others Supreme Court of India
18-06-2020 Rajendra Singh & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
17-06-2020 S. Selvam Versus The Senior Manager – HRD Air India Limited, (Now known as National Aviation Company of India Limited), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2020 Jewel SK @ Juel SK Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
16-06-2020 Prabhat Kumar Sinha Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-06-2020 Pia Singgh Versus National Law University Delhi High Court of Delhi
15-06-2020 Piara Ram Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager, Punjab National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 State Bank of India Versus Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, West Bengal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 S.K. Abdul Habib Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-06-2020 Abed Ali Biswas Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-06-2020 Ajit Barman Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-06-2020 Gulu Santra @ Ghunu Santra Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-06-2020 Kartick Paul Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-06-2020 Pawan Kishore Harlalka Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-06-2020 Uttam Gayen & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-06-2020 Rakesh Malhotra Versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
09-06-2020 State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, O/o. Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu, Chennai Versus M/s. National Pharmaceuticals [A-3], A Division of Rider Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Kamalchand Jain, Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 Bhubaneshwar Expressways Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Highways Authority of India High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Aditya Birla Money Limited, Rep. By its Head – Legal & Compliance, L.R. Murali Krishnan Versus The National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Investors Services Cell, Kotturpuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-05-2020 Ranjan Sinha & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
27-05-2020 Gautam Navlakha Versus National Investigation Agency & Another High Court of Delhi
26-05-2020 Dr. Divyesh J. Pathak & Others Versus National Board of Examinations & Another High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 Bibhas Kunti @ Bibhas Kuti Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-05-2020 Dipu Singh @ Hulo Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-05-2020 Jalaluddin @ Jalaluddin Versus State of West Bengal & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-05-2020 The Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation, Water Resources Department, Sinchan Bhavan, Kopri Colony, Thane (West) & Others Versus M/s. F.A. Enterprises & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Mohet Hojai Versus National Investigation Agency Supreme Court of India
13-05-2020 Jayanta Sarkar Versus National Jute Board & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-05-2020 Md. Jahidul Islam & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-05-2020 Suprabha Adhikari & Others Versus The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary Revenue, West Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura