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



Sri Asim Kumar Bhattacharyya v/s Kaushik Chatterjee


Company & Directors' Information:- A. KUMAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19201UP1995PTC018833

Company & Directors' Information:- S KUMAR & CO PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909WB1946PTC014540

Company & Directors' Information:- S KUMAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U45203DL1964PTC117149

Company & Directors' Information:- KUMAR (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1986PTC041038

Company & Directors' Information:- D. CHATTERJEE & COMPANY PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U74140WB1986PTC041541

Company & Directors' Information:- P KUMAR & CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105WB1998PTC087242

Company & Directors' Information:- CHATTERJEE & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900WB1932PTC007285

Company & Directors' Information:- M CHATTERJEE & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1956PTC023022

Company & Directors' Information:- M KUMAR AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1982PTC014823

    C.P.A.N. No. 835 of 2017 in W.P.S.T. No. 223 of 2016

    Decided On, 16 January 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY & THE HONOURABLE MR. MIR DARA SHEKO

    For the Petitioner: D.N. Roy, Sankha Ghosh, Manujendra Narayan Roy, Advocates. For the Respondents: Joytosh Majumder, ld. G.P., Pinaki Dhole, Avishek Prasad, Advocates.



Judgment Text

In re: C.P.A.N. 835 of 2017

1. Heard Mr. Majumder, learned Government Pleader being assisted by Mr. Pinaki Dhole and Mr. Avishek Prasad representing the alleged contemnors and learned counsel Mr. D.N. Roy being assisted by Mr. Sankha Ghosh and Mr. Manujendra Narayan Roy representing the applicant in the contempt application where the only lis is as to whether there has been a violation of this Court's order directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceeding on or before 9th June, 2017.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner relying upon paragraph nos. 14, 15 and 16 in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 180 and paragraph nos. 31, 35 and 36 in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739 submits that the final order in the disciplinary proceeding was passed without grant of any opportunity of hearing and as such the same is not sustainable and since communication of the result of the disciplinary proceeding was not complete within the period fixed by the Court, last date of which was 9th June, 2017, there has been a deliberate violation of the Court's order and the proceeding stands lapsed and as such appropriate order should be passed against the contemnors since for violation of the order of this Court, the applicant has been the worst sufferer.

3. Mr. Majumder, learned Government Pleader, per contra, inviting our attention to the materials on record submits that there were certain formalities which had to be completed for conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding. After the applicant replied to the show cause notice dated 6th March, 2017 on 20th March, 2017, the Irrigation and Waterways Department (in short, I&W Department) consulted the Public Service Commission (in short, the PSC). The queries of PSC were answered by the I&W Department on 25th May, 2017 but thereafter as no communication was forthcoming from PSC and as the period stipulated for conclusion of the proceeding was fast approaching, the Joint Secretary, I&W Department filed an application for extension of time being C.A.N. 5307 of 2017 on 6th June, 2017. Thereafter on 7th June, 2017 the I&W Department received a memo dated 5th June, 2017 from PSC recommending imposition of penalty. Immediately the file was sent for the assent of the Hon'ble Governor and thereafter the disciplinary authority passed the final order on 9th June, 2017. The said final order was posted from the G.P.O. at 17.59 hours on 9th June, 2017 and simultaneously sent in a sealed cover by a special messenger to the residential address to the applicant but as he was available at his residence, the special messenger pasted the final order outside the main door of the applicant's house.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, in reply, submits that the applicant was served with copy of the CAN application and that the reply furnished in response to the applicant's application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 would clearly reveal that the final order was only sent by the authorities but actually served upon the applicant on 9th June, 2017 and as communication of the decision was complete the proceeding cannot be construed to have been concluded on 9th June, 2017, the date stipulated in the order of this Court and as such there has been a deliberate violation of the Court's order.

5. The only consideration before us is as to whether there has been any wilful and deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court towards conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding by 9th June, 2017.

6. Perused the cases cited by learned counsel of the applicant. For proper appraisal, let us set out paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 from the case of Sethi Auto (supra) which runs as follows:

"14. It is trite to state that notings in a departmental file do have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an officer is an expression of his viewpoint on the subject. It is no more than an opinion by an officer for internal use and consideration of the other officials of the department and for the benefit of the final decision-making authority. Needless to add that internal notings are meant for outside exposure. Notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the department, gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned.

15. In Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 395), a Constitution Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider the effect of an order passed by a Minister on a file, which order was communicated to the person concerned. Referring to Article 166(1) of the Constitution, the Court held that order of the Minister could amount to an order by the State Government unless it was expressed in the name of the Rajpramukh, as required by the said article and was then communicated to the party concerned. The Court observed that business of State is a complicated one and has necessarily to be conducted through the agency of a large number of officials and authorities. Before an action is taken by the authority concerned in the name of the Rajpramukh, which formality is a constitutional necessity, nothing done would amount to an order creating rights or casting liabilities to third parties. It is possible, observed the Court, that after expressing one opinion about a particular matter at a particular stage a Minister or the Council of Ministers may express quite a different opinion which may be opposed to the earlier opinion. In such cases, which of the two opinions can be regarded as the "order" of the State Government? It was held that opinion becomes a decision of the Government only when it is communicated to the person concerned.

16. To the like effect are the observations of this Court in Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra, ((2003) 5 SCC 413), wherein it was said that a right created under an order of a statutory must be communicated to the person concerned so as to confer an enforceable right."

The paragraphs 31, 35 and 36 of Yoginath (Supra) runs as follows:

"31. In view of the above, a delinquent employee has the right of hearing only during the enquiry proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer into the charges levelled against him but also at the stage at which those findings are considered by the disciplinary authority and the latter, namely, the disciplinary authority forms a tentative opinion that it does agree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. If the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are in favour of the delinquent and it has been held that the charges are proved, it is all the more necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee before reversing those findings. The formation of opinion should be tentative and final. It is at this stage that the delinquent employee should be given an opportunity of hearing after he is informed of the reasons on the basis of which the disciplinary authority has proposed to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer. This is in consonance with the requirement of Article 311(2) of the Constitution as it provides that a person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. So long as a final decision is taken in the matter, the enquiry shall be deemed to be pending. Mere submission of findings to the disciplinary authority does bring about the closure of the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceedings would come to an end only when the findings have been considered by the disciplinary authority and the charges are either held to be proved or found to be proved and in that event punishment is inflicted upon the delinquent. That being so, the "right to be heard" would be available to the delinquent up to the final stage. This right being a constitutional right of the employee cannot be taken away by any legislative enactment or service rule including rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution.

35. Since the Disciplinary Committee did give any opportunity of hearing to th appellant before taking a final decision in the matter relating to the findings on the two charges framed against 4 him, the principles of natural justice, as laid down by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra (1998) 7 SCC 84) referred to above, were violated.

36. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the disciplinary proceedings come to an end either when the delinquent is exonerated of the charges or when punishment is inflicted upon him on the charges being proved. Since in the instant case, the Disciplinary Committee had given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant before finally recommending to the State Government to dismiss him from service, the principles of natural justice were fully complied with and that too at a stage earlier than the stage when the curtain was finally brought down on the proceedings. He contended that only the findings recorded by the enquiry officer but the reasons for which the Disciplinary Committee had agreed with those findings, were communicated to the appellant to whom a notice was also issued to show cause why he be dismissed from service. He further contended that the appellant submitted a reply in which he attacked the reasons for which the Disciplinary Committee had decided to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and, therefore, in the given circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that there was a failure or denial of opportunity at any stage."

7. In the instant case it appears that the disciplinary proceeding was concluded before 9th June, 2017, which was the last day fixed in the Court's order and apart from posting the final order on the said date from G.P.O., the same was also served and communicated to the applicant upon affixing the final order on the main door of his house.

8. Now taking the lis into consideration, let us give our observations as to whether the disciplinary proceeding was concluded by 9th June, 2017 since it has been urged by learned counsel for the applicant that the final order was communicated to him before the stipulated date. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that his client had received one sealed envelope under registered post on 10th June, 2017, as was posted from the G.P.O. on 9th June, 2017 at 17.59 hours and the said envelope has been kept intact and has been opened till date. But curiously enough in the affidavit-in-reply it has been averred in paragraph 5(e) that "the admitted position is this that the petitioner received the final order 10.06.2017 which was opened or read by the petitioner. However, subsequently he came to know through RTI Information that the Final Order was issued and dispatched on 09.06.2017 through Postal Service. Having read the said Final Order, the petitioner found it to be absolutely faulty and the same can be said to be a Final Order at all". The said paragraph has also been affirmed as true to knowledge. From the above quoted text we want to put emphasis upon the words "final order". Such averments give a clear indication that upon receiving the sealed envelope on 10th June, 2017, which contained the final order in the disciplinary proceeding, he had kept the same intact so that he may agitate an issue that the final order was communicated to him and that as such the proceeding has been concluded within the time stipulated by the Court and the proceeding has accordingly lapsed.

9. That apart, in the affidavit-in-opposition, a photograph of a document which was pasted outside the main door of the applicant's house has been annexed. Though the text of such document is so legible, in the affidavit-in-reply the said document has been dealt with by the applicant and there is also no denial of the averment that the said document was pasted outside the main door of his house. From the said sequence it is explicit that the applicant had knowledge that the disciplinary proceeding was concluded on 9th June, 2017.

10. The judgments upon which reliance has been placed are clearly distinguishable on facts and the same do emanate from contempt matters. In the in

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

stant case the disciplinary proceeding was concluded within the stipulated date. The final order was posted on 9th June, 2017 itself from the main post office of Kolkata 2017 and simultaneously the same was also sent in a sealed cover by a special messenger to the applicant's residence but he was available and as such the same was pasted outside the main door of the applicant's house on 9th June, 2017 itself. As the envelope was properly stamped, correctly addressed and posted within the given date then it shall be deemed that there was valid communication of the final order of said disciplinary proceeding to the applicant and the same stood concluded on 9th June, 2017. 11. High authorities speak of diffidence and temperance in the invocation of contempt jurisdiction and the sparing use of the punitive measures. The noncompliance of an order has to be wilful and deliberate and not mere accidental or unintentional. The explanation given by the alleged contemnor in the affidavit filed reveals that there was no deliberate and wilful denial to comply with the order of this Court. Accordingly, the contempt application is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-06-2020 Deep Umesh kumar Shrivastav Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
02-06-2020 Niraj Kumar Tiwari Versus State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
02-06-2020 Abhay Kumar Ojha Versus State of M.P. High Court of Madhya Pradesh
02-06-2020 K. Naveen Kumar @ Naveen @ Bikla Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by High Court Government Pleader, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
01-06-2020 Rajeev Kumar Singh Versus State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
29-05-2020 Manoj Kumar Versus Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Excise, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
27-05-2020 Raj Kumar Gupta Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
26-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar & Others Versus Raj Kumar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-05-2020 Suneet Kumar Versus Krishna Kumar Agarwal High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
23-05-2020 Pradeep Kumar Bhatia Versus Paramjit Kaur Paintal High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 Santosh Kumar Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-05-2020 Kundan Kumar Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
21-05-2020 Binay Kumar Mishra Versus The Director (R.P. Cell), Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Others High Court of Delhi
20-05-2020 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Nilesh Mahendra Kumar Gandhi & Another Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Check of Accounts) & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 Sunil Kumar Aledia Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
20-05-2020 Mohit Kumar & Another Versus Ashok Kumar Tiwari & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-05-2020 Baglekar Akash Kumar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-05-2020 Ravindra Kumar Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-05-2020 Dheeraj Kumar & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
14-05-2020 Manish Kumar Yadav & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-05-2020 Pardeep Kumar & Another Versus State of Haryana & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-05-2020 Shiv Prasad Singh Versus Nageshwar Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Swapan Kumar Saha Versus Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-05-2020 Kumar Bimal Prasad Singh & Others Versus Hare Ram Singh & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Mohomed Saleem Versus R. Senthil Kumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-05-2020 Anil Kumar @ Anil Versus State by Kodigehalli Police Station, Rep. by its Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
11-05-2020 M. Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by the State Police Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
11-05-2020 Pawan Kumar & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-05-2020 Gauri Shankar Versus Rakesh Kumar & Others High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 Virendra Kumar Versus Vijay Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-05-2020 Vijay Kumar Agrahari Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
06-05-2020 The State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Sanjeev Kumar Chawla High Court of Delhi
06-05-2020 Sunder Kumar & Others Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
01-05-2020 Jitender Kumar @ Rajan Versus Kamlesh High Court of Delhi
01-05-2020 Manish Kumar Mishra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-04-2020 Romesh Kumar Bajaj Versus Delhi Development Authority High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State of GNCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
27-04-2020 Sunder Kumar & Others Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
24-04-2020 Sahil Kumar Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
24-04-2020 Lingam Anil Kumar Versus Sowmya Lingam High Court of Andhra Pradesh
24-04-2020 Naresh Kumar Versus Director of Education & Another High Court of Delhi
22-04-2020 Devender Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
21-04-2020 For the Appellants: Amit Saxena (Senior Advocate) assisted by Abhishek Srivastava, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ajit Kumar, Punit Khare, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-04-2020 Mahadeo Construction Co. at Chhatarpur, Palamau Through its partner Anil Kumar Singh Versus The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
20-04-2020 Pradip Kumar Maji Versus Coal India Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-04-2020 Aman Kumar Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-04-2020 Aman Kumar Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-04-2020 Manoj Kumar Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-04-2020 T. Ganesh Kumar Versus Union of India Represented by Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 India Awake for Transparency, Rep. by its Director, Rajender Kumar Versus The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 Ramjit Singh Kardam & Others Versus Sanjeev Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
07-04-2020 B. Ravi Kumar Reddy & Another Versus Bhagyamma & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-04-2020 Gaurav Kumar Bansal Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Suchitra Kumar Singha Roy Versus Arpita Singha Roy High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-03-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Chief Manager Versus Arvind Kumar Jain National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-03-2020 State Versus Krishan Kumar High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Akshay Kumar Singh Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta Versus State of N.C.T. of Delhi Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta & Others Versus State High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 R. Raghavan, Partner of Dinamalar Group, Dinamalar (RF) New Standard Press Annex, Trichy & Others Versus Educomp Solutions Ltd, Through its Senior Manager Nithish Kumar & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-03-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Bikram Kumar Jaiswal West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-03-2020 Mukesh Hyundai Versus Ankur Kumar Roy National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Surendra Kumar Versus Phulwanti Devi High Court of Rajasthan
18-03-2020 Amar Kumar Saraswat Versus M/s. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Dr. Ajay Kumar Versus Indu Bala Mishra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Praveen Kumar Versus M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-03-2020 Subodh Kumar & Others Versus Commissioner of Police & Others Supreme Court of India
16-03-2020 Kuldeep Kumar & Others Versus Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
16-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Malay Kumar Majumder & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 V.T. Suresh Kumar Versus Managing Director, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
16-03-2020 Munna Kumar Singh Versus State of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Dalip Kumar & Others Versus State of Delhi High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Vijay Kumar Singh Versus Rana Cooperative Housing Society & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
12-03-2020 Sunil Kumar Mishra Versus State High Court of Delhi
11-03-2020 M/s. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, R. Kirlosh Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 Kishore Kumar & Another Versus The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - I, EDF-III, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Amar Kumar Paikra Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
06-03-2020 Pankaj Kumar Singh Versus National Thermal Power Corp Ltd. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
06-03-2020 South Eastern Coalfields Limited Versus Ashok Kumar Thakur High Court of Chhattisgarh
05-03-2020 Shantanu Kumar & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
05-03-2020 Dilip Kumar Jatkar Versus Jayasree Jatkar High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-03-2020 Pardeep Kumar Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
05-03-2020 Gunjan Kumar Versus Management of Circle Head Punjab National Bank, Darbhanga & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
05-03-2020 Debiprasad Chatterjee Versus Chaitali Das West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
04-03-2020 Pradip Kumar Chaudhuri Versus M/s. Dagcon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Through its Resolution Professional Bimal Agarwal & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 Uttam Kumar @ Tillu Versus State of MP High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-03-2020 Kiki Doma Bhutia Versus Bijendra Kumar Singh High Court of Sikkim
04-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Sharma Versus Nirmaldas Manikpuri High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-03-2020 The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruvannamalai Versus Suresh Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Another Versus M/s. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust & Others Supreme Court of India
03-03-2020 Dr. Bussa Ramesh Kumar Versus The State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-03-2020 In The Matter of:D & I Taxcon Services Private Limited Versus Vinod Kumar Kothari, Liquidator of Nicco Corporation Limited National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
03-03-2020 M.K. Santhosh Kumar & Another Versus The Federal Bank Ltd., Represented by Chief Mnager & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-03-2020 Leon Thomas Kumar @ Layon Thomas Kumar Versus Mariam Sayanora Thomas High Court of Kerala
03-03-2020 Subir Kumar Sett Versus The Managing Director, Woods Laboratories Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata


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