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



Sunil Bharti Mittal & Others v/s N. Naresh Kumar & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- NARESH KUMAR & COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1992PTC054475

Company & Directors' Information:- M MITTAL AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1999PTC098624

Company & Directors' Information:- BHARTI CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U61200PN2014PTC151056

Company & Directors' Information:- MITTAL AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203DL1996PTC083614

Company & Directors' Information:- SUNIL & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U32109WB1984PTC037810

Company & Directors' Information:- SUNIL KUMAR PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U17111RJ1985PTC003429

Company & Directors' Information:- NARESH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1986PTC026242

Company & Directors' Information:- S P MITTAL AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202PB1974PTC003402

Company & Directors' Information:- MITTAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101OR1992PTC003005

    Criminal Petition No. 8249 of 2014

    Decided On, 11 December 2019

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

    For the Petitioners: C.V. Nagesh, Sr. Counsel, Satyanarayana Chalke, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, B.R. Manjunath, Advocate (Absent), R2, Mahesh Shetty, HCGP.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: This Criminal petition is filed Under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the order dated: 31.10.2014 passed by the Addl. C.J.M, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in C.C.No.6882/14 directing the registration of a case against the Petrs. for offences which are made Penal Under Section 406, 504, 506(B) of IPC and under Section 72, 72A and 66A of Information Technology Act and ordering process against them for their appearance in the case before the court and further be pleased to quash the proceedings that are being recorded in the case.)

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to set aside the order of the Magistrate, taking cognizance and to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.66882/2014 pursuant to PCR No.117/2013 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 504, 506(B) IPC and Sections 72-A and 66-A of Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. A private compliant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was lodged by the Respondent No.1 stating that the Complainant is a customer of ‘Airtel’ Service Provider for the prepaid sim-card of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that accused No.5 is the wife of complainant and there is a family dispute between the complainant and accused No.5. The complainant had filed divorce petition against his wife and the same was pending consideration before the Family Court at Bengaluru. It is stated in the complaint that after the dispute arose between husband and wife, the complainant changed his earlier mobile phone number and was using a different number. It is alleged by the complainant that the wife colluded with the petitioners herein to collect the complainant’s call details between 1/10/2012 to 09/10/2012. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant received certain calls from anonymous persons enquiring about the complainant’s identity and whereabouts since 10/10/2012. The complainant is said to have lodged a complainant before the Commissioner of Police on 25/10/2012 and before the Joint Commissioner of Police and jurisdictional Police, Soladevanahalli.

3. The complainant further states that in this regard the complainant communicated through several emails between 27/10/2012 to 03/11/2012 to petitioners herein. It is also stated that complainant had several telephonic conversations with petitioner No.4 who was the then Nodal Officer of Bharati Airtel Limited, No.55, Divyashree Towers, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bangalore-29.

4. The complainant seems to have raised a issue with the petitioner No.4 herein that they had disclosed his call details to 3rd parties without the consent of the complainant. However it is also stated in the complainant that petitioner No.4 denied having received any such complaint and service provider would not disclose the call details without the authorization or the consent of the sim card holders. In short, the allegation made by the First Respondent complainant is that the petitioner’s being service provider, have given call details of the complainant without his consent and therefore the accused persons are liable for punishment Under Sections 72, 72-A & 66-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and also under section 406 of IPC.

5. On the receipt of the complainant the Magistrate referred the complaint to the Soladevanahalli Police for investigation and report. Pursuant to the same, the Jurisdictional Police Registered a case in crime No.65/2013 for offences punishable under sections 406, 503, 506, 507 and 34 of IPC and under sections 66-A, 72 and 72-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 against the petitioners herein and wife of the complainant.

6. On investigation, the investigating officer submitted a ‘B’ final report to the Magistrate. The Magistrate on the basis of the protest petition filed by Respondent No.1, took cognizance of the offences in the complainant and thereafter posted the matter for recording of sworn statement of the complainant. After recording of the sworn statement of the complainant, the Magistrate directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police (North Division) Bangalore to further investigate into the matter and submit a report to the court. The Assistant Commissioner of Police submitted a report stating that there is no truth whatsoever in the allegations made by the complainant and the complaint is motivated, seeking to wreck vengeance against the wife of the complainant.

7. Despite two reports, the Magistrate passed an order dated: 31/10/2014 directing registration of the case against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioners are before this court.

8. Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that this is a clear case of abuse of process of this court. The petitioner No.1 is the Chairman of the Bharati Airtel Limited, while the petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director and both of them take care of the affairs of the company sitting at New Delhi. It is submitted that on the face of it, it is clear that petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 have nothing to do with the complaint made by the complainant. Similarly petitioner No.3 is a chief executive officer and the petitioner No.4 is Nodal Officer of the company sitting at the office in Bennarghatta Main Road, Bengaluru.

9. Learned senior counsel further submits that in a criminal proceedings, the question of vicarious liability would not arise. Moreover, it is submitted that if a Police Officer, during the course of investigation of the case requires the call details of a person, then the concerned officer of the Service Provider is required to give such information. On the contrary, if such information is not made available to the Police Officer, then in all probability, the service provider can be hauled up for not providing the information and creating hurdles in the duty of a Police Officer. The learned Senior Counsel, while pointing out to the statement given by Accused No.5 i.e. wife of the complainant, would submit that on 10-10-2012, the concerned Police Officer, secured call details of her husband since she had made a complaint to the police that her husband had been missing. It is in this regard that the jurisdictional police had to secure the call details of the complainant since there was a complaint made by complainant’s wife that the complainant has been missing from his residence.

10. Learned Senior counsel would submit that in fact Section 92(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Police Officer to seek for such information from the postal or telegraphic authority, as the case may be, to cause search to be made for and to detain such document, parcel or thing pending the order of a District Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate or Court under sub Section 1 of Section 92 Cr.P.C. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that Sections 91 and 92(2) of Cr.P.C., were being invoked by the Police Officers till January, 2014. Sections 91(1) to 91(3) of Cr.P.C read as follows:-

91. Summons to produce document or other thing:

(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court of officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed:

(a) to affect, sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872(1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or

(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.

Since January 2014, the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology Department, Department of Telecommunications (Security Wing) of Govt. of India, has issued a circular dated 02.01.2014 to all Telecom Service Providers including Bharti Airtel Limited enclosing mandatory clauses of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of lawful interception and monitoring for Telecom Service Provider. It is pointed out from the Mandatory clauses, especially that clause 3.5 would provide, whenever a Legal Enforcement Agency asked for call detail recorder of a particular subscriber under Section 92 of Criminal Procedure Code, (Cr.PC) or under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules 2007, by providing the mobile or landline number etc., the Call Detail Recordes must be provided in a format prescribed by Department of Telecommunications giving out all the 13 details mentioned in Clause 3.5. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that no fault can be found with the Service Provider. Moreover the Chairman and Managing Director are in no way involved in the day-to-day activities of the Branches in the country. He further submits that if the officer incharge of the branch were to decline to give any such information, then even the said Officer would be liable for penal action. The investigating officer having investigated into the matter and having filed ‘B’ report and moreover when Assistant Commissioner of Crime also went into the issue and submitted report to the Magistrate, the learned Magistrate could not have ignored the report.

11. The learned counsel has also pointed out that when a person is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, then as provided in Section 202 of Cr.P.C, the Magistrate is required to postpone the issue of process against the accused or enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

12. Having heard the learned Sr. counsel and perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that on plain reading of the complaint, it is evident that the offences sought to be made out against the petitioners who are Service Providers, are not attracted. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel the service providers are duty bound to give information whenever required by a Police Officer who is investigating into the matter and the learned Senior counsel is right in his submissions that if such request is made by Police Officer and if the local Branch Officer does not disclose the information, then he may be liable for criminal action and may be liable for penal consequences. The learned Magistrate was duty bound to look into these aspects and moreover, petitioners No.1 and 2, who are the Chairman and Managing Director of the Service Provider company, sitting at New Delhi, are in no way involved in the day- today activities of local branches across the country.

13. Incidentally in a matter involving the very same petitioner i.e.,

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

in the case of Sunil Bharati Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609, the Apex Court has held that when a Company is accused, its Directors, can be roped in only if there is sufficient incriminating evidence against them coupled with criminal intent or a statutory regime attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability. Therefore, unless and until there is incriminating evidence against the Directors of a Company, coupled with criminal intent, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against the Directors of a Company. It is clear from the complaint that no such allegation either of criminal intent or any incriminating evidence to allege personal motive against the petitioners herein are found. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that no case was made out against the petitioners and the learned Magistrate could not have proceeded to take cognizance of the complaint made by the first respondent herein. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order taking cognizance by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and all further proceedings in CC No.6882/2014 pursuant to PCR No.117/2013 are hereby quashed and set-aside as against the petitioners herein. It is ordered accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

18-09-2020 Mukul Mittal & Another Versus Union of India Through its Secretary & Another High Court of Delhi
14-09-2020 Naresh Kumar Rai Versus State of Sikkim, Through Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok & Another High Court of Sikkim
09-09-2020 Mittal Electronics Versus Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
24-08-2020 B. Sunil Kumar & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Rep. by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
18-08-2020 Vinay Mittal Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
14-08-2020 Sunil Chillalshetti & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Medical Education Department, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-08-2020 Sunil Agrawal Versus Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Through its Chairman, Naya Raipur (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
23-07-2020 Sunil Rathee & Others Versus The State of Haryana & Others Supreme Court of India
23-07-2020 Sunil N. Godhwani Versus State High Court of Delhi
17-07-2020 Bar Council of Delhi Through its Chairman K.C. Mittal & Others Versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
13-07-2020 M/s. Vismaya Advertising, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Manager Sunil S. Menon & Another Versus The Intelligence Officer (IB), Department of Commercial Taxes, Mattancherry at Aluva & Others High Court of Kerala
07-07-2020 Sunil Yadavrao Beedkar Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
07-07-2020 Kamla Nehru Educational Society Thru Secy. Shri Sunil Dev & Others Versus State of U.P. Thru Secretary Housing & Urban Planning & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
03-07-2020 K.J. Sunil Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
01-07-2020 Ishwar Chander & Another Versus Sunil Saran High Court of Punjab and Haryana
01-07-2020 Sree Gokula Chit & Finance Co (Pvt.) Ltd Versus Sunil Sabu High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Sunil Raj, Corrected As Susil Raj (The Name of the Petitioner typed as “Sunil Raj” in the cause title of the Memorandum of Crl.M.C., Synopsis, Index and petition for Interim Direction and on The Docket is corrected as “Susil Raj” as per order dated 12.11.2019 in CRL.M.A.No.1/2019 in CRL.M.C.No.1797/2017.) Versus Gopan & Another High Court of Kerala
25-06-2020 Sunil @ Sunil Ashok Gadivaddar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 Vinod Mittal Versus State of H.P. & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
15-06-2020 Uma Mittal & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-06-2020 Sunil Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-05-2020 Naresh Tyagi Versus State of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
27-05-2020 Naresh Kumar Versus Charanpreet Kaur @ Priti & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
20-05-2020 Sunil Kumar Aledia Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 Anil Mittal Versus State (NCT of Delhi) & Others High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Neetu Mittal & Another Versus State of U.P & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-04-2020 Naresh Kumar Versus Director of Education & Another High Court of Delhi
23-03-2020 Bharti Khanna Versus State High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Jiwat Ram Versus M/s. Bharti Telenet Limited & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
13-03-2020 M/s. Fossil India Private Limited, Represented by Sunil Prabhakaran Authorised Signatory Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Audit-5.4), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
12-03-2020 Sunil Kumar Mishra Versus State High Court of Delhi
02-03-2020 M/s. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., Doddaanekundi, Bangalore Versus Narasimman & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 Ankit Bharti & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-02-2020 Mahesh Babulal Mittal & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-02-2020 Naresh Rawat Versus State of M.P. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
17-02-2020 Naresh Kumar Arora & Another Versus Nitin Garg High Court of Delhi
17-02-2020 Sunil Gandhi & Another V/S A.N. Buildwell Private Limited High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 M/s. Villayati Ram Mittal Versus Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalpa Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-02-2020 Rambabu Singh Thakur Versus Sunil Arora & Others Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 M/s. Vadim Infrastructure Private Limited. (formerly M/s.VolTech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director R. Rajamanickam Versus M/s. Sunil HiTech Engineers Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 Bharti Airtel Ltd. The Authorised Signatory, Mumbai & Others V/S Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
07-02-2020 Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Priya Paul & Another Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Versus State of Kerala Reptd. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
06-02-2020 Sunil Soni & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 State Bank of India V/S Mittal Marketing Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
05-02-2020 Nandagopal Chetty & Another Versus Sunil & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 Sunil Kumar, Director, Zephyr Entrance Coaching Centre, Kunnumpuram Versus C.S. Abdul Jabbar Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
03-02-2020 Real Pro Assets Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director Chandigarh Versus Pankaj Mittal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-01-2020 Vinay Kumar Mittal & Others Versus Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Next Radio Limited, Mumbai & Others V/S Prasar Bharti And Others Competition Commission of India
30-01-2020 Sunil Polist Versus CPIO /Manager (CRM)/EDMS Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Information Commission
24-01-2020 Desai Mittal Baldevbhai Versus State of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
21-01-2020 Sunil @ Sumit Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-01-2020 Akhilesh Bharti Versus State High Court of Delhi
20-01-2020 R.C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sunil Bansal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-01-2020 Naresh Versus State High Court of Delhi
09-01-2020 Shilpa Mittal Versus State of NCT of Delhi & Another Supreme Court of India
08-01-2020 Naresh Sao Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
06-01-2020 Naresh @ Pappu Pager Versus State High Court of Delhi
03-01-2020 D. Lakshmi & Others Versus R. Naresh Kumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 B. Sunil Baliga Versus Sudir High Court of Karnataka
17-12-2019 Shweta @ Sakshi Versus Sunil High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
12-12-2019 S. Sudarshan Versus G.M. Sunil Kumar High Court of Karnataka
11-12-2019 Sunil Pundalik Admile Versus Madhukar Tukaram Kshirsagar In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
06-12-2019 Dharmendra Prasad & Others Versus Sunil Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 New India Assurance Company Versus Ravinder Kumar Mittal & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-11-2019 Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement Versus Sunil Godhwani High Court of Delhi
21-11-2019 Sunil Versus Neethu High Court of Kerala
19-11-2019 Naresh & Others Versus Hemant & Others Supreme Court of India
14-11-2019 Soma Barman Nee Datta Versus Sunil Chandra Podder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-11-2019 M/s. Shaf Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. Versus Doordarshan - A Constituent of Prasar Bharti & Another Supreme Court of India
04-11-2019 Sunil Bhai Sheth Versus M/s. Agricore Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
24-10-2019 Dr. Murali Krishnan, Proprietor, Sri Anjaneya Enterprises, Chennai Versus M/s. Glider Pharma Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Presently known as National Medicines Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Naresh Kumar, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-10-2019 K. Naresh Versus The Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-10-2019 M/s. Terai Tea Company Limited Versus Kumkum Mittal & Others Supreme Court of India
17-10-2019 Naresh Kumar & Others Versus Govt. of Nct of Delhi High Court of Delhi
17-10-2019 Naresh Kumar & Others Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
16-10-2019 Sajeev Govindan, Proprietor – Royal Cafe, Rep. by Power of Attorney, Naresh Desingh Versus The District Collector, Ex-Officio President, Nilgiris & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-10-2019 Miraj Medical Centre Miraj through Medical Superintendent & Others Versus Sunil Tukaram Danane & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-10-2019 Sharda Mittal, Barnala Versus Union of India through the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication & I.T. Department of Post, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
27-09-2019 P.S. Abhiram Sunil Versus Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science, Represented By Its Registrar, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
20-09-2019 Sharmila Mukhopadhyay Versus Sunil Kanti Barua, Rep by his Constituted Attorney - Prasanta Bose & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-09-2019 Sunil Versus State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
19-09-2019 Ramji Bharti Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-09-2019 M/s. Mohit Ispat Ltd., by its Director Achintya Mittal Versus State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
16-09-2019 Sunil Eknath Bajaj & Others Versus Maheshwari Seva Trust & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-09-2019 Sunil Kumar Agarwal Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-09-2019 Chetana Nuthalapati Versus Naresh Kantheti High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-09-2019 Chaman Lal Mittal Versus Kamini Sharma High Court of Delhi
04-09-2019 Manager, Geeta Bal Bharti Sr. Sec. School & Another Versus Ramesh Chander Dubey & Another High Court of Delhi
04-09-2019 The State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Aman Mittal & Another Supreme Court of India
04-09-2019 Santosh Kumar Versus M/s. Bharti Infratel Limited & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
03-09-2019 M/s. Balaji Ginning Factory, through Its Proprietor – Sunil Chiranjilal Bajaj Versus Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-08-2019 Bela Mittal Versus M/s. Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-08-2019 Naresh & Another Versus Deepak Singh & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
28-08-2019 Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Versus M/s. Arrow Devices Pvt. Ld. Represented By Its Managing Director, Shri Aditya Mittal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-08-2019 M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Madhya Pradesh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
26-08-2019 Naresh Bansal Versus State (GNCTD) & Others High Court of Delhi
22-08-2019 M/s. Haskoning B.V. Dutch Consulting Engineers & Architects rep. by its Power of Attorney holder Sunil Kumar Versus M/s. Kamarajar Port Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-08-2019 The State of Maharashtra Versus Hemant Ashokkumar Mittal High Court of Judicature at Bombay