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



Snigdha v/s Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi through its Vice Chancellor & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L01132WB1919PLC003334

Company & Directors' Information:- D TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403MH2015PTC268305

    W.P.(C) No. 6736 of 2012

    Decided On, 19 October 2016

    At, High Court of Jharkhand

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

    For the Petitioner: M/S Sumeet Gadodia, Prem Pujari Roy, Advocates. For the Respondents: M/s Rohit Ashya Roy, Srija Choudhary, P.A.S. Pati, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner herein has approached this Court on cancellation of her provisional admission in Master in Urban Planning(MUP for short) for the session 2012-14 by the impugned notice dated 2.11.2012 (Annexure-4) issued by the Respondent Birla Institute of Technology(BIT), Mesra for failing to secure minimum 60% marks in qualifying examination of Bachelor in Architecture(B.Arch in short). The Respondent BIT being a deemed University under the U.G.C. Act, 1956 follows the admission criteria where in for the instant course minimum qualifying marks of 60% is prescribed for General category students while 55% marks for the Sponsored category students. The Sponsored category candidates are those who are employee in recognised Educational Institutes / Universities/ Colleges or in Government/Defence/Research Laboratories or in Industry etc. Such candidates should have normally 2 years of experience and are required to submit their application in prescribed format along with a letter of sponsorship from their Organization.

3. Petitioner was a appearing candidate in the B.Arch. Final year examination from Kavi Kulguru Institute of Technology and Science, Nagpur. Such appearing candidates were allowed to face the entrance test conducted by the Respondent BIT and were also provisionally admitted in MUP course subject to their obtaining the prescribed minimum qualifying marks of 60% for the General Category candidate. Petitioner apparently fetched 58.64% marks in the B.Arch. Course. That is why her provisional admission was cancelled by the impugned notice. Then she approached this Court in the present application on 5.11.2012 complaining that she would be denied permission to appear in the examination of First Semester of MUP course for the session 2012-14 on account of cancellation of her provisional admission. The learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the order of the same date was pleased to allow the petitioner to provisionally appear in the First Semester examination of MUP course. However it was made clear that petitioner's result of the said examination shall be subject to the result of writ petition. Petitioner again approached this Court in the instant matter through I.A. No.3474 of 2012 seeking declaration of result of First Semester examination and permission to pursue studies in the Second Semester course. Learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.1.2013 was pleased to direct the Respondent BIT to declare her result of First Semester of the MUP Course and if she has cleared the same, she shall be admitted in the second semester course provisionally, subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. Petitioner also sought permission to move an application for impleadment of AICTE, which was formally moved thereafter through I.A. No. 268 of 2013 and allowed vide order dated 20.2.2013. On being impleaded, AICTE was noticed to appear. She again approached this Court in the present matter through I.A. No. 3484 of 2013 seeking directions upon the Respondent BIT to publish the result of the Second Semester of MUP Course and also to allow her to take registration for Third Semester MUP Course. Taking note of the background fact and the fact that AICTE after its impleadment had not yet appeared and the issue raised herein is awaiting adjudication, by the order dated 1.7.2013 petitioner was provisionally allowed to appear in course subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. It was however also made clear that she would not claim equity in her favour on final adjudication of the writ application. Petitioner has completed the 2 years MUP Course for the Session 2012-14, final examination of which were held in June 2014. The Respondent BIT reportedly has also shown her result in the website as having passed but the final degree has not been issued. Petitioner therefore made a prayer through I.A. No. 4087 of 2016 for early hearing of the writ petition or in the alternative to direct the Respondent BIT to declare her final result and issue the certificate.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to address the Court on the plea of classification between the Sponsored Candidate and General Category Candidate whose qualifying marks have been fixed as 55% and 60% as being discriminatory.

5. The Respondent BIT in their counter affidavit have relied upon the document at Annexure-A which is said to be the guidelines laid down for admission of sponsored candidates to full time PG Degree Programmes issued in the 8th Meeting of the RO of the AICTE held on 15.2.1995 where under qualifying marks for admission to PG Degree Programme has been shown as 55% as approved by the AICTE. The University contends that the aforesaid yardstick of laying down 55% marks for the sponsored candidate and 60% marks for General category candidate is rational and has been followed in admission to the PG Degree Programme consistently by the University without any deviation. Petitioner being the General category candidate could not allege discrimination vis-a-vis Sponsored candidate who form a distinct class in themselves.

6. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has appeared during course of the proceedings of the case and also filed its affidavit. Learned counsel for the AICTE in its affidavit have however stated that they are not in a position to comment upon the guidelines at Annexure-A relied upon by the University since the entire document has not been annexed. According to them the present handbook for admission to PG Degree Course issued by the AICTE prescribes 50% qualifying marks for the Undergraduate Bachelor Course for admission. Beyond that they do not make any comment.

7. The authority to prescribe higher standards of eligibility criteria beyond what is prescribed by the Regulatory Body, AICTE, on the part of the State or the University is not in dispute as has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Visveswariah Technological University and another v. Krishnendu Halder and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 606 relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Preeti Srivastava(Dr.) v. State of M.P. reported in (1999) 7 SCC 120 and other judgments on the point. The category of sponsored and general category students from two distinct classes. Laying down of different eligibility criteria by the Regulatory Body or by the University does have a rational nexus for the object sought to be achieved. This Court is not satisfied that plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner merits acceptance. However, the underlying fact remains that the petitioner has finally completed the MUP course from the Respondent BIT for the session 2012-14. Apparently, case of the petitioner is not one of those where she has failed in the B.Arch examination and became wholly ineligible for even participating in the entrance test for admission to the master degree programmer of the Respondent BIT or any other institute. She in fact fetched 58.64% marks, falling short of 1.46% from the prescribed 60% eligibility criteria.

8. As is informed, petitioner has also qualified in the entrance test conducted by the BIT for admission to the MUP Courses. It is only by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court earlier on different occasions, noted herein above, that she has been allowed to complete 2 years MUP Course by the Respondent BIT. The Respondent BIT does not dispute that petitioner has come out successful in the final examination for the said course. The aforesaid state of fact therefore present a unique situation to be dealt with in that perspective. There cannot be any derogation in the laying down of uniform standard for admission to any such courses by the University or a deemed University. Any other view would not be warranted in the eye of law. However, the precious time used in imparting teaching and energy consumed in the process for undertaking the course, both by the petitioner and on the part of the University would be rendered waste if it is held that petitioner is not entitled for the degree that she has completed now successfully for the MUP Course. Apart from the loss to the petitioner, it could also be loss to the Society in that sense as valuable qualification earned in a master degree course would be rendered useless. It would also lead to waste of higher qualification acquired by her.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Domestic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571] reiterated that Article 226 is designedly couched in a wide language in order not to confine the power conferred by it only to the power to issue prerogative writs but to enable the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found and to mould the relief to meet the peculiar and complicated requirement. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749] it was held that mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts can be no ground to hold that the High Courts have not to do complete justice and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in FCI v. S.N. Nagarkar [(2002) 2 SCC 475] and ESI Corporation v. Jardine Henderson Staff Association [(2006) 6 SCC 581] as also in the case of A. Sudha v. University of Mysore [(1987) 4 SCC 537]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [(2006)7 SCC 501] had, on finding that prima-facie there was no commission of fraud and no lack of bonafides on the part of the appellant candidate in completing the Engineering course, considered it proper to allow award of degree to the appellant subject to payment of Rs. 1 lac by way of re-compensation. The Apex Court found that the question whether Koshti-Halbas were members of Scheduled Tribe, was not decided by the Court and the appellant had obtained admission and completed the Engineering course claiming to belong to a reserved category (Halba, ST) while he belonged to General category (Koshti). In order to complete justice between the parties in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, however, the candidate was allowed to obtain the degree on payment of Rs.1 lack considering the heavy expenditure undertaken by the State in imparting such professional education.

10. This Court in the circumstances, therefore considers it proper to mould the relief. The Respondent BIT, Mesra, Ranchi shall publish the final result of the petitioner for the MUP C

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ourse and award the degree to her. This however shall not be treated as precedent for any other student. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction from the petitioner fairly submits that this Court may while moulding the relief prescribe any such reasonable condition, which the petitioner would comply without any objection. 12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstance, while moulding the relief as above, petitioner is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.75,000/- with the University, BIT, Mesra, Ranchi, which would be used for the purposes for enriching its Library for the benefit of students and the teaching community at large. On deposit of the cost within the period of 3 weeks, the University would issue final result of the petitioner and award the degree in question. 13. For the reasons discussed herein above, the impugned notice at Annexure-4 dated 2.11.2012 is accordingly quashed. Let it be made clear that this Court has not in any way doubted the eligibility criteria laid down by the University for admission to the PG degree courses, like MUP course in question. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

19-06-2020 The Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur & Another Versus Dr. Subroto Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
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
26-05-2020 O.R. Rahul & Others Versus Indian Institute of Space Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 M.G. Narasimha Rao Versus The Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement, Roving Squad, Chengalpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-05-2020 Score Information Technology Ltd. Versus Central Organisation, Ex-Serviceman Contributory Health Scheme High Court of Delhi
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Labour And Two Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Appellate Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-05-2020 Priyambada Devi Birla & Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Jayakumar Assistant Professor-Cum-Assistant Director, Centre For Social Exclusion & Inclusion, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus Dr. Jyothi S. Nair & Others High Court of Kerala
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Dr.(Mrs) Sania Akhtar, Working as Principal Director (Senior Principal Scientist), Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology SARP, Bangalore Versus The Director General, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers, Guindy, Chennai & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
05-03-2020 Dinesh Kumar Rao Versus G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
04-03-2020 S. Aruputharaj Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Education, Science & Technology, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit-I & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Rep. by its Chairman, Er.A. Mohamed Yunus, Trichy & Others Versus The Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Guindy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Anna University Campus, Chennai Versus Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Namakkal & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Daniel Oommen Versus National Institute of Technology, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
12-02-2020 Richa Jindal Versus Pec University of Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-02-2020 Achal Bisht Versus Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management & Catering Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
05-02-2020 Rasi Travels & Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd., A company having its Registered Office at Janpath, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Syndicate Bank V/S Narayanadri Institute of Science And Technology and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
30-01-2020 Pramod Poddar Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-01-2020 Chedde Mahesh Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Another Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
23-01-2020 Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Others Versus Sunita Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
17-01-2020 Masaddar Ali Laskar, Officer Surveyor, Office of the Director GDC, Assam Nagaland, GDC Versus The Union of India, Through the Secretary, To the Government of India, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-01-2020 The Principal , Global Institute of Fashion Technology (GIFT) & Another Versus Bikramadittya Sai & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-01-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, "Aaykar Bhavan" Versus Gigabyte Technology (India) Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
06-01-2020 Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi Versus Shibu M. Job, Now Working as Director (Postal Life Insurance), Kolkatha & Others High Court of Kerala
17-12-2019 M/s. Lanco Hills Technology Park Pvt Ltd. Versus Manisha Balkrishna Kulkarni & Another Supreme Court of India
11-12-2019 D.R. College of Engg. & Technology, College Campus at V&PO Kakoda Versus Nitin Parashar Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
02-12-2019 Basava Engineering School of Technology Rep. by its Principal B.J. Patil Versus State of Karnataka Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Department of Technical Education High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
29-11-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Versus Ashok Kumar Kuthiala Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
26-11-2019 Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Salem Versus The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 The Registrar, National Institute of Fashion Technology, N.I.F.T. Campus, Taramani, Chennai & Another Versus Sam D. Raja Prabhu & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-11-2019 The Management of M/s. Birla Te Versus Chunni Lal High Court of Delhi
13-11-2019 Biju Borah Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-11-2019 Majaffar Hussain Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-11-2019 Ranjit Sukla Baidya, Tripura Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Post, Ministry of Communication & Technology, Government of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
29-10-2019 K.A. Mohammed Manikfan, Junior Scientific Officer, Department of Science & Technology, Kavaratti Versus Union of India, Rep. by The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti & Others High Court of Kerala
23-10-2019 Teledata Technology Solutions Versus Official Liquidator High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-10-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Golla Venkateswaramma Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
11-10-2019 R. Rajkumar & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
26-09-2019 Snehacharya Institute of Management & Technology Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
24-09-2019 B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-09-2019 Ramsay Exim & Technology Private Limited & Others ICICI Bank Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-09-2019 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-08-2019 Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair, Rtd. Professor & Director of School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
20-08-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Konchada Ravi Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-08-2019 Sudhan Ranjan Bhowmik Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Ministry of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
19-08-2019 Bharti Airtel Limited & Another Versus Maharashtra Information Technology Corporation Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-08-2019 Software Technology Parks of India, Chennai Versus Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-08-2019 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Department, Secretariat, Guntur District & Others Versus R.V. Prakash High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-08-2019 Tapas Malakar Versus The Union of India Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Government of India, Central Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Tripura
02-08-2019 Global Institute of Fashion Technology (G.I.F.T) Versus Shaista Parveen West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
31-07-2019 M.J.R. College of Engineering & Technology, Rep., by its Principal, G.V. Ramu & Another Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Corporation Bank, Damalacheruvu Rep., by its Branch Manager, Sudhir Kumar Dubey High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-07-2019 Sidharth Chauhan Versus Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund Through its investment Manger & Lawful attorney, Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-06-2019 Apeejay Institute of Technology School of Architecture & Planning & Another Versus Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University & Others Supreme Court of India
25-06-2019 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Larger Taxpayer Unit, Nungambakkam High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-06-2019 Hindustan College of Science & Technology Versus All India Council for Technical Education & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-06-2019 Sri Nandhanam College of Engineering and Technology, Molagarampatti, Tiruppattur, Rep. by its Chairman, P.M.N. Mohan Krishnaa Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2019 The Cochin Institute of Science & Technology, Ettappally, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Principal Dr. S.R. Deepa Versus Jisin Jijo & Others High Court of Kerala
03-06-2019 Kiran Murali & Another Versus Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., (A Company incorporate under the Companies Act, 1956) Having its Office at Softward Technology Park, Electronics Complex, Madhya Pradesh & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2019 The Director, Rajagiri School of Engineering & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
31-05-2019 Beena Rajesh Raika Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-05-2019 Sagnik Pal & Others Versus National Institute of Technology, Agartala & Others High Court of Tripura
28-05-2019 M/s. Teleecare Network India Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
23-05-2019 Kamal Sharma & Others Versus Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
14-05-2019 Ram Govind Institute of Technology, Mahuvan, Koderma Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
09-05-2019 Birla Corporation Limited Versus Adventz Investments & Holdings Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
08-05-2019 M/s. Ipjacket Technology India Versus M.D. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-05-2019 Anuradha Chakraborty Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
02-05-2019 Medirad Tech India Limited & Another Versus Technology Development Board High Court of Delhi
30-04-2019 Ind Trust Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Versus Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-04-2019 Immanuel Arasar International Institute of Science & Technology Educational Charitable Trust rep. by its Founder Trustee Sam G.Jebajoselin Versus The Regional Officer, Southern Regional Office, AICTE & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-04-2019 Ashutosh Bansal Versus Birla Institute of Management & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-04-2019 Akshansh Gupta Versus Department of Science & Technology & Others High Court of Delhi
05-04-2019 VESTAS Wind Technology India Private Limited, (Production Business Unit), Rep. by V.P/Factory Manager, Chennai Versus M. Arul Prakasam & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 Binud Sonowal Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
01-04-2019 Lakhidhar Das Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
01-04-2019 Kerlinmon Kharshandi, SP (HQ), Itanagar Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of Post of Revenue Central Board of Excise, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
01-04-2019 Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited & Another Versus M/s. Inox Renewables Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-03-2019 S.K. Shivakumar, Junior attendant, Central Library, IIT Madras Versus The Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-03-2019 In the Matter of: M/s. APM Group Limited Versus M/s. Adept Technology Private Limited National Company Law Tribunal Chennai
22-03-2019 P. Muhammed Abdul Gafoor Versus The Secretary to The Government, Government of Kerala, Information Technology Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-03-2019 D. Thulaseedharan Nair Versus Mohandas College of Engineering & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
15-03-2019 The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune - III Versus B.J. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-03-2019 Dr. V. Madhu Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology (Cusat), Represented by Its Registrar & Another High Court of Kerala
07-03-2019 Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. Versus Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
07-03-2019 Birla Institute of Technology Versus State of Jharkhand & Others Supreme Court of India
26-02-2019 Sumitra Samantray Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2019 CNH Industrial (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Tirth Agro Technology Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
20-02-2019 Atul Kumar Mittal Versus Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Through its Registrar & Others High Court of Delhi
20-02-2019 Jogesh Das Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Telecommunication & Information Technology, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
31-01-2019 Vellore Institute of Technology, (Deemed University), Represented by its Chancellor, Vellore Versus The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-01-2019 The Birla Sr. Secondary School Versus P.O., Industrial Tribunal-III & Another High Court of Delhi
25-01-2019 M/s. Velammal Institute of Technology, Represented by its Chairman “Velammal Knowledge Park”, Thiruvallur Versus The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2019 Bijit Boro Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


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

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

Features Intro Close Box