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



State of Bihar v/s Raj Kumar Mahto


Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900UP2008PLC035742

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PB1949PTC000515

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:- G RAJ & COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1993PTC058140

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

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ & RAJ PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U51109WB1991PTC052055

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

    Death Reference 10 Of 2003, Cri. Appeal 390 Of 2003

    Decided On, 11 September 2006

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE INDU PRABHA SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM PRASAD

    For the Appearing Parties: Ashwani Kumar Sinha, Ashutosh Kumar, Pradeep Kumar Singh, Advocates.



Judgment Text

GHANSHYAM PRASAD, J.

(1.) Both the Death Reference as well as Criminal Appeal, arise out of the same judgment and order dated 13-8-2003 delivered by Sri Tarkeshwar Pathak, Fast Track Court No. 4, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2002. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded death sentence. The appellant has called in question his conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court.

(2.) The Fardbeyan (Ext. 4) lodged by Savitari Devi, P.W. 15, unfolds the entire incident which led to murder of her son Pappu Chaudhary alias Santosh Chaudhary. The reason behind the murder is said to be love affairs. The informant has a daughter named Ravi Kumari aged about seventeen years. The appellant used to tease her. The deceased had objection and, therefore, he forbade him not to come to his locality/place. Therefore, the accused-appellant began to bear grudge against the deceased.

(3.) On 21-10-2001 at 6.00 p.m., the informant along with her son Pappu Chaudhary alias Santosh Chaudhary was returning to her residence from her laundry and when they reached near Bhindra of Pokhar, all on a sudden the accused-appellant Raj Kumar Mahto armed with pistol/ revolver and dagger appeared before the victim, Pounced upon him and began to give indiscriminate dagger blows. The informant tried to save her son but she was pushed away by the accused-appellant. Thereafter, again he gave several dagger blows on various parts of the body of the deceased as a result of which he died at the spot. Thereafter, the appellant fled away leaving behind blood stained dagger and revolver/pistol on the spot. On hue and cry raised by the informant several persons of the locality including her family members reached at the spot to whom she disclosed about the occurrence as well as name of the accused-appellant as murderer of her son.

(4.) On the same evening the police came at the spot and at about 7.30 p.m. Sugriv Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, recorded the Fardbeyan of the informant and registered Laheriasari P.S. Case No. 253/01 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-appellant. He also seized both weapons; the dagger and pistol/revolver, from the spot said to be left behind by the accused-appellant. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for autopsy. After completion of investigation the police, ultimately, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant. It is also to be mentioned here that the accused-appellant just after the occurrence surrendered before the police and his confessional statement was also recorded by the police, which is Ex. 7.

(5.) In course of trial the prosecution examined altogether eighteen witnesses including the informant, Savitri Devi, as P.W.15, Dr. P. K. Das as P.W. 17 and I.O. Sugriv Singh as P.W. 18.

(6.) As usual, the defence is total denial of the occurrence and false implication. According to accused-appellant, the deceased had illicit relation with one Rubi Kurnari and on account of that he might have been killed by the relatives of Rubi Kumari and this accused-appellant has been falsely implicated as a result of dispute with the family of the informant. Two defence witnesses have also been examined in support of the defence story who are Ganour Mahto, D.W. 1 and Amarnath Chaudhary. D.W.2.

(7.) At Bar several contentions were raised against the impugned judgment. However, main contentions are credibility of eye-witness who is closely related with the deceased, uncorroborated testimony of sole eye-witness and non-examination of material witnesses. The alternative submission is reduction of death penalty to the lesser punishment of life imprisonment as the case does not fall within the "rarest of rare cases".

(8.) In case in hand the sole eye-witness is Savitri Devi, P.W. 15, the Informant, who is none but the mother of the deceased Pappu Chaudhary alias Santosh Chaudhry. The main basis for conviction of the accused- appellant is the evidence of P.W. 15, The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W. 15 being the mother of the deceased is deemed to be the most interested witness and, therefore, conviction of accused-appellant on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of interested witness is untenable in the eye of law and hence liable to be set aside.

(9.) I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The close relative of the deceased is neither incompetent nor interested witness rather most natural witness. The relations like mother, father and the widow are the last persons to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate the innocent. It is wrong notion in the mind of some persons that close relative of the victim is always considered to be a partisan or interested witness. This question has come for consideration before the Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 1977 SC 472 : (1977 Cri LJ 273) (Most. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab) and the answer has been given In paragraph 13 of the judgment. The relevant findings of the Apex Court is as follows :

"Moreover a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term "interested" postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reason."

There are catena of decisions of the Apex Court consistent with the above view. However, I am tempted to bring to the notice one more decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1953 SC 364 : (1953 Cri LJ 1465) (Dilip Singh and others v. The State of Punjab) which would dispel the criticism of the learned counsel for the appellant. The relevant paragraphs are 25 and 26 which runs as follows ;

Para 25, "We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye witnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in the case of Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 at p. 59(A) : (1952 Cri LJ 547). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel."

Para 26, "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person, it is true when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation; Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."

Learned counsel for the appellant failed to bring to my notice any strong motive or animus for false implication by P. W. 15, the informant. I have also gone through the evidence of P. W. 15 as well as the defence witnesses and statements of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to find out any cogent and strong material for false implication by the mother of the deceased but without success.

(10.) So far the evidence on the point of occurrence is concerned, there is nothing to cast doubt on her testimony. She has stated in her evidence that on the date and time of the occurrence while she along with her son was returning to her residence from laundry and when they reached near the corner of Bhinda of Pokhar the accused- appellant appeared and pointed pistol on the chest of the deceased and assaulted him with dagger. She has further stated that she tried to save her son but she was pushed away and thereafter the accused-appellant gave seven dagger blows to the victim as a result of which he died on the spot. Thereafter, the accused-appellant fled away after throwing the pistol and dagger. She has also alleged the motive for the crime. Even long and lengthy cross-examination has not shaken this witness.

(11.) It is not a fact that the testimony of P. W. 15 is uncorroborated. It appears that just after the occurrence of murder a large number of persons including family members came on the spot on cry of the informant to whom she disclosed about the occurrence and name of the accused-appellant as assailant. P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 are full brothers of the deceased. P. Ws. 2, 10 and 11 are persons of the vicinity of the place of occurrence. They all have stated in their evidence that on hearing cry of the informant, they rushed to the spot and found the victim lying dead on the ground bearing injuries. They have also stated that the informant, who was crying, disclosed to them that the accused-appellant had killed the victim with dagger. Not only it, they have also stated in their evidence that they saw blood stained Chhura and revolver kept at the place of occurrence.

(12.) The evidence of Pawan Kumar Chaudhary, P. W. 4. who is one of the brothers of the deceased, is very important. He not only derived knowledge from his mother about the murder of the victim by the accused- appellant but also personally saw the accused-appellant, Raj Kumar Mahto, fleeing away from the place of occurrence with blood stained hands and shirt.

(13.) The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the evidence of all the aforesaid witnesses is based on hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible under S.60 of the Evidence Act. There is no gain saying that S. 60 of the Evidence Act postulates that oral evidence must be direct in all cases. However, it is inadmissible only when it proposes to establish the truth of the statement but not the factum of the statement made by other persons. There is fine distinction between proving the factum of statement and proving the truth of statement. In other words, such evidence is admissible for limited purpose when it proposes only to establish factum of the statement i.e. the fact that it was made. The above question has been dealt and answered by the Apex Court in a case reported in AIR 1982 SC 673 (J. D. Jain v. The Manager of S. B. I.). In paragraph 10 of the judgment it has been held as , follows:

"The Privy Council in the case of Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, (1956) 1 WLR 965 observed, "Evidence of a statement made to a witness who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made. The fact that it was made quite apart from its truth, is frequently relevant in considering the mental state and conduct thereafter of the witness or some other persons in whose presence these statements are made."

(14.) Thus in view of the above decision it is quite clear that the evidence of aforesaid witnesses is not totally inadmissible or irrelevant. Their statements are admissible on the point of conduct of the informant as well as factum of statement given by the informant just after the occurrence. It is also admissible on the point of recovery of blood stained dagger and revolver from the place of occurrence. All these facts lend strong support to the prosecution story as disclosed by the informant, P. W. 15.

(15.) The evidence of the Dr. P. K. Das, P. W. 17, who conducted the postmortem upon the dead body of the victim further lends support to the prosecution story. The postmortem was held on the next day by this witness who found as many as four incised injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. Ext. 3 is the post mortem report.

(16.) The other witness whose evidence is material to prove the prosecution story is Investigating Officer of the case, who is P. W. 18, Sugriv Singh. Just after the alleged occurrence he reached on the spot and recorded Fardbeyan of the informant, and took up investigation himself. Apart from preparation of the inquest report (Ext. 5) he also seized dagger and pistol/revolver from the place of occurrence through seizure list (Ext.6). The material Exts. I and II are pistol and dagger seized from the place of occurrence. In paragraph 6 of the evidence he has stated that in the same night just after the occurrence the accused-appellant surrendered before the police and gave his confessional statement, which is Ext. 7. However, it is conceded by the learned Counsel for the State that Ext. 7 is inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act as it did not lead to recovery of dagger or revolver. In fact both the weapons, pistol and dagger, had already been recovered by the police prior to the confessional statement of the accused-appellant.

(17.) The motive or no motive has got little value in this case. Apart from it, I find suffi- cient material on the record to prove the motive as alleged. Almost all material witnesses including the informant i.e. the mother, father, brothers and uncle of the deceased, have consistently stated that it was the incident of teasing of the sister of the deceased and subsequently protest made by him which ultimately prompted the accused- appellant to commit his murder. Dilip Chaudhary (P. W. 2), a man of vicinity and Rajaram Chaudhary (P. W. 3), brother of the deceased, are eye witnesses on the point of altercation between the two in which the accused-appellant had threatened the victim to kill.

(18.) The defence has examined two witnesses to prove the defence version. However, the evidence of these two witnesses is inconsistent with the defence story. According to both the witnesses the accused had differences with Laxmi Mahto over a piece of land, who is friend of the uncle of the deceased, namely, Jwala Chaudhary and, therefore, the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated at the instance of Jwala Chaudhary. The story appears to be quite improbable. Why the mother of the deceased would falsely implicate the accused-appellant with whom she personally had no quarrel? Apparently, the defence story has no leg to stand and, therefore, it is of no consequence.

(19.) Thus, in view of the above discussions of the oral as well as documentary evidence as also the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned lower Court has rightly convicted the accused-appellant under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of guilt recorded by the learned lower Court.

(20.) The last but not the least important submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is on the point of sentence. The learned counsel has assailed the sentence of death awarded by the learned lower Court on two grounds. It Is submitted that the learned lower Court without effectively complying the mandatory provision of S. 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has awarded extreme penalty of death which is apparent from the fact that the sentence has been passed on the same day on which the judgment of conviction was delivered. Second submission is that the case in hand, by no stretch of imagination, falls within the parameter of the "rarest of the rare cases" as defined by the Apex Court in its several decisions including AIR 1980 SC page 898 : (1980 Cri LJ 636) (Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab).

(21.) I find much substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is quite apparent from the record that the learned lower Court has awarded extreme penalty of death to the accused-appellant In disregard to the principles and directions laid down by the Apex Court both in the matter of hearing on the point of sentence and applying the principle of "rarest of rare cases".

(22.) The Apex Court in a decision reported In AIR 1989 SC 1456 : (1989 Crl LJ 1466) (Allauddin and others v. State of Bihar) has laid down the manner of hearing under S. 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for awarding sentence, particularly in serious nature of cases and held that as a general rule the trial Court should adjourn the matter to a future date after recording the conviction and call upon both the parties to place material on the question of sentence. The relevant decision of the Apex Court is In paragraph 10 of the Judgment which is as follows :

"The requirement of hearing the accused is intended to satisfy the rule of natural justice. It is a fundamental requirement of fair play that the accused who was hitherto concentrating on the prosecution evidence on the question of guilt should, on being found guilty, be asked if he has anything to say or any evidence to tender on the question of sentence. This is although more necessary since the Courts are generally required to make the choice from a wide range of discretion in the matter of sentencing. To assist the Court in determining the correct sentence to be imposed the legislature introduced sub-section (2) to Section 235. The said provision therefore satisfied a dual purpose; it satisfied the rule of natural justice by according to the accused an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence and at the same time helps the Court to choose the sentence to be awarded. Since the provision is intended to give the accused an opportunity to place before the Court all the relevant material having a bearing on the question of sentence there can be no doubt that the provision is salutary and must be strictly followed. It is clearly mandatory and should not be treared as a mere formality. Mr. Garg was, therefore, justified In making a grievance that the trial Court actually treat

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ed it as a mere formality as is evident from the fact that it recorded the finding of guilt on 31st March, 1987 on the same day before the accused could absorb and overcome the shock of conviction they were asked if they had anything to say on the question of sentence and immediately thereafter the decision imposing the death penalty on the two accused was pronounced. In a case of life or death as stated earlier, the presiding Officer must show a high degree of concern for the statutory right of the accused and should not treat it as a mere formality to be crossed before making the choice of sentence." It Is further held in the same paragraph that "We think as a general rule the Trial Courts should after recording the conviction adjourn the matter to a future date and call upon both the prosecution as well as the defence to place the relevant material bearing on the question of sentence before it and thereafter pronounce the sentence to be Imposed on the offender. In the present case, as pointed out earlier, we are afraid that the learned Trial Judge did not attach sufficient importance to the mandatory requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 235 of the Code." (23.) Apparently the lower Court has committed serious error by awarding death sentence to the accused-appellant without providing effective opportunity of hearing and, therefore, extreme penalty awarded to the accused-appellant is not tenable in the eye of law. Apart from it, the case in hand also does not fall within the category of "rarest of rare cases" as laid down in a decision of Apex Court reported in AIR 1980 page 898 : (1980 Cri LJ 636) (supra) and 1996 (6) SCC 271 : (1997 Cri LJ 51) (Surja Ram v. State of Rajasthan). (24.) In the result, the sentence of death awarded by the lower Court, to the accused/ appellant is hereby set aside and is commuted into the sentence of life. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed with above modification in the order of sentence. The death reference is also answered in negative in a manner said above. Order accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

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 Suryadevara Venkata Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
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 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
19-05-2020 Raj Shipping Agencies & Others V/s. Barge Madhwa & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-05-2020 G. Binu Raj Versus R. Sandhya Lakshmi High Court of Kerala
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
13-05-2020 Swapan Kumar Saha Versus Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-05-2020 Shiv Prasad Singh Versus Nageshwar Kumar & 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 Kumar Bimal Prasad Singh & Others Versus Hare Ram Singh & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
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
06-05-2020 Hukum Chand Deswal Versus Satish Raj Deswal Supreme Court of India
01-05-2020 Manish Kumar Mishra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-05-2020 Jitender Kumar @ Rajan Versus Kamlesh High Court of Delhi
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 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 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
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 State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Chikitsa Shiksha Evam Parshikshan, Government of U.P., Lucknow & Others Versus Dr. Raj Kamal Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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 Ramjit Singh Kardam & Others Versus Sanjeev Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
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
06-04-2020 Anant Raj Limited Versus Yes Bank Limited High Court of Delhi
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 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 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
10-03-2020 Muppa Venkateswara Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
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 V. Gurusamy Versus The Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-03-2020 South Eastern Coalfields Limited Versus Ashok Kumar Thakur High Court of Chhattisgarh
05-03-2020 Raj Dewangan @ Raju Versus State Of Chhattisgarh 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
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 Life Insurance Corporation Of India Through Its Additional Secretary(Legal), New Delhi Versus Raj Vilas Dongre & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
02-03-2020 M/s. Binjusaria Ispat Private Limited Versus Amit Kumar Agarwal High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-03-2020 V. Chakradhar Reddy & Others Versus G. Raveen Kumar & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-03-2020 Gateway Distriparks Limited & Another Versus Ranjiv Kumar Bhasin High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-03-2020 Rasheed Ali Khan, Hyd Versus Jitender Kumar Guptha, Rep. By P.P. & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-03-2020 Udbhav Kumar Jain Versus High Court of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi


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