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



Sunil John Mathew v/s K.L. Lency & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- A M MATHEW AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65923TZ1955PTC000010

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

Company & Directors' Information:- A N JOHN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74999WB1950PTC019260

    WA. No. 2032 of 2018 in WP(C) No. 2608 of 2018

    Decided On, 12 March 2019

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.G. ARUN

    For the Appellant: Dr. George Abraham, Advocate. For the Respondents: Biju Abraham, Advocate, A.J. Varghese, Sr. Government Pleader.



Judgment Text

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The appeal arises from the judgment of a learned Single Judge, which relied on the judgment of an another Division Bench in District Educational Officer, Kannur v. A.V. Sathyabhama and others [2016 (4) KHC 911 to allow the writ petition. The question raised is whether an UPSA promoted as HSA on 01.06.2016 is entitled to be protected under Ext.P5 G.O. dated 29.01.2016.

2. The brief facts to be noticed are that the 1st respondent herein was appointed in a promotion vacancy as HSA on 01.06.2016. The appellant herein was originally appointed as UPSA on 01.06.1999 and then promoted as HSA on 01.06.2016, in which vacancy the 1st respondent was appointed as UPSA. In the academic year 2017-2018, there was a division fall in the High School and the appellant, who was a promoted hand in the post of HSA, was directed to be reverted to the post of UPSA as per the staff fixation order. On such reversion, the 1st respondent would be retrenched from service subject only to Rule 51A of the Kerala Educational Rules, 1959 [for brevity, 'the KER']. The 1st respondent then filed a writ petition before this Court contending that the appellant herein is entitled to protection as per Ext.P5 G.O. The appellant resisted the same before the learned Single Judge, since even if protected, he would be sent out from the School and would have to continue in another School, where there is a vacancy of HSA.

3. The learned Single Judge found that the question is squarely covered by A.V. Sathyabhama [supra]. Therein, according to the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench had categorically found that the initial appointment to service and regularisation there at is the relevant aspect, which has to be considered for the purpose of enabling protection of a teacher. The appeal challenges the said reliance on the Division Bench, placed by the learned Single Judge, contending that the relevant G.O.'s are distinguishable on the protection enabled.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out Ext.P5 and specifically refers to Clause I(6), wherein any appointments made after 2015-2016 is specifically excluded from the benefit of protection. The learned Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent would assert that going by Clause I(1) of Ext.P5 G.O., any person, regularly continuing in service by virtue of an appointment granted prior to 31.03.2011, is entitled to protection. The 1st respondent also asserts that the judgment cited would squarely apply in the present case. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that Ext.P5 dated 29.01.2016 was brought out in the context of the earlier package having been set aside by judgment of a learned Single Judge. The Government though initially filed an appeal from the judgment, later withdrew it and issued Ext.P5.

5. We notice that Ext.P5 package was introduced only subject to a challenge made from the judgment in WP(C) No.19008 of 2013 and connected cases. We have been informed that the said judgment has been approved up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, it does not affect the specific issue of protection as raised in the present writ petition, since the referred decision is with respect to the ratio between the teachers and students and the manner in which staff fixation orders have to be passed up to Standard VIII and then in the High Schools also.

6. We first have to look at the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. A.V. Sathyabhama [supra] was a case in which the UPSA's entered service on various dates in July, 1997. They were promoted as HSA's in January, 1998 and June, 1999. The protection orders were also specifically referred to in the judgment. The Division Bench, in paragraph 12 found that GO(P) No.175/99/G.Edn. Indicates that all aided School teachers, who were in service as on 14.07.1996, will be given protection by retaining them in the respective Schools subject to the three conditions specified therein. Later, a clarification was issued by GO(P) No.240/99/G.Edn., wherein all aided School teachers, who were in service as on 14.07.1996 and those appointed during 1996-1997 up to 14.07.1997, were eligible for protection. Then GO(P) No.187/05/ G.Edn. was issued inserting second proviso to Rule 43 in Chapter XIV-A KER, which we extract hereunder:

“Provided further that where a Headmaster or a teacher who has been promoted under this rule faces retrenchment for want of vacancy, he shall be reverted to the category of post from which he has been promoted provided he is not eligible for protection in the retrenched post as per the orders issued by the Government from time to time.”

7. The aforesaid proviso enabled those teachers, who could not be retained on the basis of the protection orders, to be reverted to their original posts. This applies only to teachers, who are continuing in promoted posts and the Headmasters, which is a promotion post. The Division Bench specifically found on a combined reading of the Government Orders and the proviso that the protection provided by Exts.P2 & P3 is available to all aided School teachers, who were in service as on 14.07.1996 and also those who were appointed against regular vacancies during 1996- 1997 up to 14.07.1997 [wrongly noticed in the judgment as 14.07.1999]. We find a clear distinction in so far as the Government Orders therein and the Government Order at Ext.P5. We also notice the observation made by the Division Bench in paragraph 15, which is as hereunder:

“The Government Orders do not prescribe that those who are appointed on or before 14.07.1997, but promoted thereafter, will be retained in service on protection only in the post in which they were initially appointed.” [sic]

We find on a complete reading of Ext.P5 that such a stipulation is available in the present G.O. read with the second proviso to Rule 43.

8. We extract Clause I of Ext.P5 hereunder:

“MALAYALAM”

(underlining by us for emphasis)

9. Sub-clause (1) indicates that any person in regular service on the basis of an approval on or before 31.03.2011 would be granted protection in that post. We are called upon to consider whether this would apply to the initial appointment or the appointment to the promoted post. At the risk of repetition, we observe that in the GO's considered in A.V. Sathyabhama [supra], there was no reference to the continuation in regular service on the basis of an approval. Admittedly, in the promoted post also, there should be an approval obtained from the Educational Authority. There is also a period of probation in the promoted post which has to be declared after the stipulated period. In other words while the earlier GO's protected all who were in service prior to 14.07.1996 and those appointed in regular vacancies till 14.07.1997; here the protection is to those who continued in regular service, with approval, till 31.03.2011. The appellant if continuing as an UPSA would have been entitled to protection since his continuance is based on the approval granted to his appointment as UPSA. However as on the date of division fall he is continuing in the promoted post of HSA, which approval was obtained with effect from 01.06.2016. Hence the appellant would not be entitled to protection, in the promoted post, his approval being subsequent to 31.03.2011. But by virtue of the second proviso would be retained in the reverted post of UPSA.

10. This interpretation is further fortified by sub-clauses (5) and (6) of Clause I. By sub-clause (6) it has been specifically indicated that no appointments after 2015-2016 academic year would be allowed protection. The appointment of the appellant to the post of HSA was on 01.06.2016, in the next academic year of 2016- 2017. We revert back to the observation of the Division Bench we extracted from paragraph 15, therein it was noticed that a clause restricting protection in the promoted post was not available in the earlier GO's of 1996 and 1997. Ext.P3 is the appointment order of the appellant herein to the promoted post, for which approval was necessary and approval was obtained. As per Ext.P5 GO, it cannot be said that the protection is available to all teachers continuing in regular service prior to 31.03.2011. Further Clause I(5) of Ext.P5 in its first limb enables protection of teachers inter alia promoted or transferred between 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 academic years. If Clause I(1) had to be interpreted as protection being enabled for all persons continuing in service on or before 31.03.2011; then necessarily there was no necessity for sub-clause(5); since the transferred or promoted teachers who are so enabled protection were in service before 31.03.2011. So the promoters, who were so appointed in the promoted post between 2011-2012 to 2014-2015, were only enabled protection in the promoted post.

11. On the facts coming out herein, we notice that the 1st respondent was appointed on 02.06.2016, which does not enable him for protection either under sub-clauses (1) or (5)and is pointedly excluded by sub-clause (6). We postulate a situation, wherein the HSA was appointed on promotion between 2011-2012 and 2014- 2015; in which event, the protection enabled is in accordance with sub-clause (5) of Clause I and not sub-clause (1) of Clause I.

12. On the facts arising herein, as we noticed, the appellant was promoted as an HSA on 01.06.2016 as per Ext.P3 appointment order, which was also approved. The approval relates back to the date of appointment, ie. 01.06.2016. The continuation of the appellant in the post of HSA was in accordance with the approval with effect from 01.06.2016. We also notice the approval granted to Ext.P3, which is as herein below:

“The appointment is approved as HSA [Malayalam] with effect from 01.06.2016 onwards based on the declaration of the Manager and subject to the condition mentioned in the GO(P) No.29/16/G.Edn. dated 29.01.2016 and 951951/J2/16/G.Edn.”

The G.O. mentioned therein is Ext.P5. The approval was in accordance with Ext.P5 G.O. also, which enables protection only to teachers, who were continuing on the basis of approval orders on or before 31.03.2011. True, the teachers promoted between 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 also were granted protection. The appellant herein was promoted after the academic year 2014-2015, on 01.06.2016, which takes him out of the ambit of the protection afforded as per Ext.P5. Then we have recourse to the proviso to Rule 43, which speaks of a teacher in a promoted post not being enabled to protection, being enabled for reversion to the original post. Here, the appellant was promoted as HSA from the post of UPSA. He would hence have to be reverted to the post of UPSA as is found in the staff fixation order.

13. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent relied on Ext.P6 issued by the Director of Public Instructions [DPI] and a Circular issued by the Special Secretary of the Kerala Education Department, later of which was produced across the Bar, bearing No.J2/217/18/G.Edn. dated 19.11.2018. A reading of Ext.P7 would not support the case of the 1st respondent. There the objection noticed was with respect to a HSA regularly appointed being deployed as HSA to another school on protection and a promoted HSA, who is senior being reverted, when the person reverted is also entitled to protection. This situation does not arise here. 14. The Circular, however, takes a totally different stand from the G.O. at Ext.P5. We extract the Circular hereunder:

“MALAYALAM”

15. A Circular issued by the General Education Department cannot interpret the order issued by the Government invoking its executive powers. The Circular can at best be considered as an understanding of the Officer in the General Education Department and it would not enure to the benefit of the 1st respondent, especially it being contrary to the protection granted in Ext.P5.

16. We, also from the underlined portion in the above extract, notice that the Special Secretary has found that there is nothing in the G.O. indicating whether an approval granted after 2015-

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

2016 would dis-entitle protection. This is specifically against sub-clauses (5) and (6) as we extracted from the G.O. In this context, it has to be emphasised that the proviso introduced under Rule 43, makes it very clear that the eligibility of protection in the retrenched post should be as per the orders issued by the Government from time to time. Ext.P5 is the order now issued, which specifically restricts protection to any appointments approved after 31.03.2011 and also to promotions or transfers approved after 2015-2016. The further finding in the circular that merely because of a promotion, which is a statutory right under Rule 43, the protection cannot be denied is a clear misunderstanding. Even if appointed by promotion, a division fall would entail retrenchment. This is sought to be avoided by the protection granted by the Government. If protection is not enabled there is the 2nd proviso under Rule 43 which provides for reversion and thus continuance in the post from which there was a promotion. 17. On the above interpretation given to Ext.P5, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. We hence set aside the judgment and direct the staff fixation order to be complied with scrupulously. The writ appeal would stand allowed. The parties shall suffer their respective costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

28-09-2020 M/s. Kottackal Timbers, Adoor, Represented by Its Managing Partner, Rajan Mathew & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest & Wildlife, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
14-09-2020 John Numpeli, Junior Advocate & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
11-09-2020 Mathew Lawrence Versus Rockey C. Neroth & Another & Another High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 John Joseph, Advocate, Chairman Voters Alliance, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-08-2020 B. Sunil Kumar & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Rep. by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
21-08-2020 Sunil Kumar Bishnoi Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-08-2020 Mathew Sameul Versus Edapadi K. Palanisamy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 George Elamplakkadu@Vakkachan Powathil Versus A.V. Mathew@Samkutty Vettupalam & Others High Court of Kerala
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
27-07-2020 M/s. Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Its Director Shaji K. Mathew, Vyttila Versus The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
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
20-07-2020 S. John Peter Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-07-2020 S. John Peter Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Cheriyan Mathew, Member, The Kanakkary Service Cooperative Bank Limited & Others Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Kottayam & Another High Court of Kerala
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
01-07-2020 Sherif Vincent, Represented by his wife & Power of Attorney holder Reeny Sherif & Another Versus M.S. John & Another 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
30-06-2020 T.K. Mathew Versus The Secretary & Registrar of Marriages, Thalavady Grama Panchayat, Alapuzha & Another High Court of Kerala
25-06-2020 Sunil @ Sunil Ashok Gadivaddar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
12-06-2020 Dr. Hans U. Nagar Versus John Nagar & Another High Court of Delhi
10-06-2020 Sahayamary Versus John Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-06-2020 Prince Mathew, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Idukki & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
04-06-2020 Sunil Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-06-2020 John Sounder Versus The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-05-2020 Rajan Arjunan Versus M/s. KLM Axiva Finvest Ltd. Kattappana, Represented by Its Credit Control Officer, Bineesh Mathew & Another High Court of Kerala
20-05-2020 Sunil Kumar Aledia Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 Royson Mathew Versus K. Minimol & Another High Court of Kerala
22-04-2020 Anthony John Pool Versus Richard Benjamin Summerlee & Others Court of Appeal of New Zealand
30-03-2020 Sunil Kumar Mohanty Versus Kalahandi Anchalika Gramya Bank & Others High Court of Orissa
23-03-2020 Chinchu Mathew Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 The Corporation of Kochi, Represented by Its Secretary, Kochi Versus Thomas John Kithu & Others High Court of Kerala
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
11-03-2020 M/s. Logical Developers Private Limited, New Delhi, Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Jose Joseph, Kochi & Another Versus M/s. Muthoot Mini Financiers Private Limited, Pathanamthitta, Represented by Its Chairman & Managing Director Roy M. Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
06-03-2020 K. John Dhanraj & Others Versus The District Collector,Theni District & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-03-2020 George P. John Versus Alex P. John, Represented by his wife & Power of Attorney holder Shirly Alex High Court of Kerala
05-03-2020 V.P. Mytheen Versus Joji P. Mathew Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-03-2020 In The Matter of: T. Johnson, of St. John Freight Systems Limited (Company under Insolvency) Majority Shareholder & Managing Director (Suspended) Versus St. John Freight Systems Limited Through R. Venkatakrishnan (Resolution Professional of St.John Freight Systems Limited) Partner of RVKS & Associates, Chartered Accountants, R.A. Puram, Chennai & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 Gavin John Hurlimann Versus Beverley Anne Noland Court of Appeal of New Zealand
03-03-2020 Lt.Col.R.John Daniel Versus The District Registrar, Registration Department, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Hotel Surya, Iritty, Represented by Its Managing Partner, K.T. Mathew Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Department of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
02-03-2020 Shino John Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
28-02-2020 John Kenneth Slavich Versus Attorney-General Court of Appeal of New Zealand
27-02-2020 Prosound Products Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Partner Pradeep Ahuja & Another Versus John Enterprises, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 St.Paul's Seminary, Represented by its Procurator, Tiruchirapalli Versus John Prakash Ebinesan & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-02-2020 Arokiyasamy Versus John Peter & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-02-2020 V. Gowri (died) & Others Versus John Kenedy @ Murugan High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Sunil Gandhi & Another V/S A.N. Buildwell Private Limited High Court of Delhi
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 Jose Mathew Versus The State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies (B) Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
11-02-2020 N. Cristel John Versus The Manager, District Co-operative Bank, Parassala Branch & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
10-02-2020 John Enterprises, Madurai V/S Prosound Products, Rep. by its Partner Pradeep Ahuja, Mumbai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 John Kuriakose Versus State of Kerala 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 Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Versus State of Kerala Reptd. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
05-02-2020 Nandagopal Chetty & Another Versus Sunil & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 John K. Illikkadan Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Justice, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
04-02-2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Thane Versus Anthony John Pereira High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-02-2020 Sunil Kumar, Director, Zephyr Entrance Coaching Centre, Kunnumpuram Versus C.S. Abdul Jabbar Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
30-01-2020 Sunil Polist Versus CPIO /Manager (CRM)/EDMS Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Information Commission
30-01-2020 John Pushparaj & Others Versus Kasi Nadar & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-01-2020 John Kamo & Others Versus Minister of Conservation & Another Court of Appeal of New Zealand
28-01-2020 Aleyamma Mathew, Thiruvalla, Formerly working as Regional Manager Recover, M/s. Kerala Housing Finance Limited, Branch Office at Pathanamthitta Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2020 George Mathew Versus T.A.M. Pookkoya Thangal & Another High Court of Kerala
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 Sunil @ Sumit Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-01-2020 R.C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sunil Bansal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-01-2020 K. John & Others Versus John Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
17-01-2020 Augustine John Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
09-01-2020 Society of Sisters of Saint John & Another Versus Arvind & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
07-01-2020 Jencin Mathew Versus Boby P. Augustine High Court of Kerala
20-12-2019 Deepa Mathew Versus Corporate Manager Catholicate & M.D. Schools, Devalokam, Kottayam High Court of Kerala
19-12-2019 J. John Winfred Versus International Airport Authority of India Rep. By Airport Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 B. Sunil Baliga Versus Sudir High Court of Karnataka
19-12-2019 Biju Mathew Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
18-12-2019 Mathew Inacio Abreo Versus --------- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-12-2019 Shweta @ Sakshi Versus Sunil High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
13-12-2019 Skyline Construction Housing Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Ashley John Machado & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-12-2019 S. Sudarshan Versus G.M. Sunil Kumar High Court of Karnataka
11-12-2019 Sunil Bharti Mittal & Others Versus N. Naresh Kumar & Another 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
03-12-2019 Mathew Varghese Versus Krishnan, Kuttanad & Others High Court of Kerala
27-11-2019 P.J. John Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
27-11-2019 Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement Versus Sunil Godhwani High Court of Delhi
26-11-2019 Mathew Thomas Versus Augustine Sanjeevi Beattie High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 Mathew Daniel Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
21-11-2019 Sunil Versus Neethu High Court of Kerala
21-11-2019 Navia Sebastian Versus M/s. Nippon Infra Project (P) Ltd., Kochi, Represented by Its Director John George & Another High Court of Kerala
19-11-2019 George John & Others Versus The Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
18-11-2019 Nishad Mathew Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
18-11-2019 Sini Thomas Versus Shaji John High Court of Kerala