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



Sunil Kumar Mishra v/s State


Company & Directors' Information:- R K MISHRA & COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1990PTC049582

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

Company & Directors' Information:- R B MISHRA & CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200BR1981PTC001523

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

    Crl.Rev.P. No. 494 of 2017

    Decided On, 12 March 2020

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

    For the Petitioner: Pramod Kr. Dubey, Kushank Sindhu, Anurag Andley, Advocates. For the Respondent: Hirein Sharma, Addl. PP.



Judgment Text


Judgment (Oral)

1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 27.02.2017 whereby the appeal of the petitioner impugning order on conviction dated 28.10.2015 has been dismissed, however the order on sentence dated 08.11.2015 has been modified.

2. Petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court of the offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for the period of 18 months under Section 304A IPC.

3. The Appellate Court, in the appeal filed by the petitioner, considering mitigating circumstances and also the family condition of the petitioner, while upholding the order on conviction, modified the order on sentence and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 8 days and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 months for the offence under Section 304A IPC, instead of 18 months.

4. The Appellate Court additionally directed that the driving licence of the petitioner shall stand cancelled and debarred him from obtaining any driving licence throughout his life and directed that no fresh driving licence shall be issued to him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already undergone the entire sentence; however, he is impugning the order of the Appellate Court, in so far as it directs the cancellation of the driving licence of the petitioner and debars him from obtaining any driving licence throughout his life.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was a driver and is the sole bread earner of his family having dependent children and wife. It is submitted that the petitioner survives and earns his livelihood by driving only.

7. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has a good case on merits in so far as the offence is considered, however as he has already undergone the entire sentence, he is restricting his prayer to impugning the direction with regard to cancellation of the license and the debarment from obtaining a fresh licence.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Appellate Court committed a grave error in as much as no direction for cancellation of license was issued by the Trial Court and no such direction could be issued by the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the petitioner and the direction for cancellation of license is an additional punishment and amounts to enhancement of sentence and is contrary to the powers of the Appellate Court under Section 386 Criminal Procedure Code.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the cancellation of license is beyond the powers conferred on the court by Section 20 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He submits that power has been vested only in the Licensing Authority under Section 19 of the Act to cancel a license or disqualify a person from obtaining a license and the power conferred on the Court under Section 20 of Act is to disqualify for a limited period.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner does not fall in either of the two categories. He submits that no action has been taken by the Licensing Authority under Section 19 for revoking his licence and under Section 20 of the Act, power could have been exercised by the Court only if the petitioner had already been sentenced under Section 184 of the Act and committed an offence for the second time.

11. Learned counsel submits that since admittedly it is the first alleged offence of the petitioner under Section 184 of the Act, the Court could not have exercised powers under Section 20 of the Act to disqualify him.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgments in K. Vidyanand Vs. Addl. Licensing Authority, Hyderabad Central Zone, Hyderabad and Ors. 2008 SCC Online AP 386; S. Nandkumar Vs. Licensing Officer, Tiruppur South & Anr. 2010 SCC Online Mad 2069 and A. Sekar Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur South 2010 SCC Online Mad 4759.

13. Section 19 of the Act empowers the licensing authority to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence or revoke the license if he is a habitual criminal or habitual drunkard; or is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance within the meaning of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or is using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence; or has by his previous conduct as driver of a motor vehicle shown that his driving is likely to be attended with danger to the public; or has obtained any driving licence or a licence to drive a particular class or description of motor vehicle by fraud or misrepresentation; or has committed any such act which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to the public, as may be prescribed by the Central Government, having regard to the objects of this Act; or has failed to submit to, or has not passed, the tests referred to in the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 22; or being a person under the age of eighteen years who has been granted a learner’s licence or a driving licence with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the holder of the licence and has ceased to be in such care.

14. Section 20 of the Act reads as under:

“20. Power of Court to disqualify.—(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act or of an offence in the commission of which a motor vehicle was used, the Court by which such person is convicted may, subject to the provisions of this Act, in addition to imposing any other punishment authorised by law, declare the persons so convicted to be disqualified, for such period as the Court may specify, from holding any driving licence to drive all classes or description of vehicles, or any particular class or description of such vehicles, as are specified in such licence:

Provided that in respect of an offence punishable under section 183 no such order shall be made for the first or second offence.

(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 132, section 134 or section 185, the Court convicting any person of any such offence shall order the disqualification under sub- section (1), and if the offence is relatable to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 132 or section 134, such disqualification shall be for a period of not less than one month, and if the offence is relatable to section 185, such disqualification shall be for a period of not less than six months.

(3) A Court shall, unless for special reasons to be recorded in writing it thinks fit to order otherwise, order the disqualification of a person—

(a) who having been convicted of an offence punishable under section 184 is again convicted of an offence punishable under that section,

(b) who is convicted of an offence punishable under section 189, or

(c) who is convicted of an offence punishable under section 192:

Provided that the period of disqualification shall not exceed, in the case referred to in clause (a), five years, or, in the case referred to in clause (b), two years or, in the case referred to in clause (c), one year.

(4) A Court ordering the disqualification of a person convicted of an offence punishable under section 184 may direct that such person shall, whether he has previously passed the test of competence to drive as referred to in sub-section (3) of section 9 or not, remain disqualified until he has subsequent to the making of the order of disqualification passed that test to the satisfaction of the licensing authority.

(5) The Court to which an appeal would ordinarily lie from any conviction of an offence of the nature specified in sub-section (1) may set aside or vary any order of disqualification made under that sub-section notwithstanding that no appeal would lie against the conviction as a result of which such order of disqualification was made.”

15. Section 20 of the Act inter alia empowers the Court, by which a person is convicted, if he is convicted of an offence under this Act or of an offence in the commission of which a motor vehicle was used, in addition to imposing any other punishment authorised by law, to declare the person so convicted to be disqualified, for such period as the Court may specify, from holding any driving licence to drive all classes or description of vehicles, or any particular class or description of such vehicles, as are specified in such licence. The Proviso stipulates that in respect of an offence punishable under section 183 of the Act no such order shall be made for the first or second offence.

16. Section 20 (3) of the Act empowers the court, unless for special reasons to be recorded in writing to order otherwise, order the disqualification of a person inter alia (a) who having been convicted of an offence punishable under section 184 is again convicted of an offence punishable under that section and that the period of disqualification shall not exceed five years.

17. Section 21 of the Act reads as under:

“21. Suspension of driving licence in certain cases.—(1) Where, in relation to a person who had been previously convicted of an offence punishable under section 184, a case is registered by a police officer on the allegation that such person has, by such dangerous driving as is referred to in the said section 184, of any class or description of motor vehicle caused the death of, or grievous hurt to, one or more persons, the driving licence held by such person shall in relation to such class or description of motor vehicle become suspended—

(a) for a period of six months from the date on which the case is registered, or

(b) if such person is discharged or acquitted before the expiry of the period aforesaid, until such discharge or acquittal, as the case may be.

(2) Where by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (1), the driving licence held by a person becomes suspended, the police officer, by whom the case referred to in sub-section (1) is registered, shall bring such suspension to the notice of the Court competent to take cognizance of such offence, and thereupon, such Court shall take possession of the driving licence, endorse the suspension thereon and intimate the fact of such endorsement to the licensing authority by which the licence was granted or last renewed.

(3) Where the person referred to in sub-section (1) is acquitted or discharged, the Court shall cancel the endorsement on such driving licence with regard to the suspension thereof.

(4) If a driving licence in relation to a particular class or description of motor vehicles is suspended under sub-section (1), the person holding such licence shall be debarred from holding or obtaining any licence to drive such particular class or description of motor vehicles so long as the suspension of the driving licence remains in force.”

18. Section 21 of the Act inter alia provides for Suspension of driving licence in case, where, in relation to a person who had been previously convicted of an offence punishable under section 184, a case is registered by a police officer on the allegation that such person has, by such dangerous driving as is referred to in the said section 184, of any class or description of motor vehicle caused the death of, or grievous hurt to, one or more persons, the driving licence held by such person shall in relation to such class or description of motor vehicle become suspended for a period of six months from the date on which the case is registered, or if such person is discharged or acquitted before the expiry of the period aforesaid, until such discharge or acquittal, as the case may be.

19. Section 22 of the Act reads as under:

“22. Suspension or cancellation of driving licence on conviction.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 20 where a person, referred to in sub-section (1) of section 21 is convicted of an offence of causing, by such dangerous driving as is referred to in section 184 of any class or description of motor vehicle the death of, or grievous hurt to, one or more persons, the Court by which such person is convicted may cancel, or suspend for such period as it may think fit, the driving licence held by such person in so far as it relates to that class or description of motor vehicle.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 20, if a person, having been previously convicted of an offence punishable under section 185 is again convicted of an offence punishable under that section, the Court, making such subsequent conviction, shall, by order, cancel the driving licence held by such person.

(3) If a driving licence is cancelled or suspended under this section, the Court shall take the driving licence in its custody, endorse the cancellation or, as the case may be, suspension, thereon and send the driving licence so endorsed to the authority by which the licence was issued or last renewed and such authority shall, on receipt of the licence, keep the licence in its safe custody, and in the case of a suspended licence, return the licence to the holder thereof after the expiry of the period of suspension on an application made by him for such return:

Provided that no such licence shall be returned unless the holder thereof has, after the expiry of the period of suspension, undergone and passed, to the satisfaction of the licensing authority by which the licence was issued or last renewed, a fresh test of competence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) of section 9 and produced a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8.

(4) If a licence to drive a particular class or description of motor vehicles is cancelled or suspended under this section, the person holding such a licence shall be debarred from holding, or obtaining, any licence to drive such particular class or description of motor vehicles so long as the cancellation or suspension of the driving licence remains in force.”

20. Section 22 of the Act inter alia provides for Suspension or cancellation of driving licence on conviction in respect of persons referred to in sub section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. Persons referred to in sub section (1) of Section 21 are those who had been previously convicted of an offence punishable under section 184 of the act.

21. Section 22 of the Act inter alia stipulates (i) that without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act where a person, referred to in sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Act is convicted of an offence of causing, by such dangerous driving as is referred to in section 184 of the Act, of any class or description of motor vehicle the death of, or grievous hurt to, one or more persons, the Court by which such person is convicted may cancel, or suspend for such period as it may think fit, the driving licence held by such person in so far as it relates to that class or description of motor vehicle; (ii) that without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Act, if a person, having been previously convicted of an offence punishable under section 185 of the Act is again convicted of an offence punishable under that section, the Court, making such subsequent conviction, shall, by order, cancel the driving licence held by such person.

22. In the facts of the present case, since there is no material on record to show that petitioner was earlier convicted of an offence under section 184 of the Act, clearly, sections 21 and 22 of the Act are not applicable.

23. Both the courts have held that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle i.e. truck trailer in rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased from the back, in such a manner that it caused the death of the deceased, who was declared brought dead.

24. Petitioner has been convicted of an offence under section 304A of IPC i.e. causing death by rash and negligent act. Death has been caused by use of a motor-vehicle. Clearly Section 20 (1) of the Act would be attracted and the Court, in addition to imposing any other punishment authorised by law would be empowered to declare the petitioner to be disqualified, for such period as the Court may specify, from holding any driving licence to drive all classes or description of vehicles, or any particular class or description of such vehicles, as are specified in such licence.

25. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the imposition of punishment of cancellation of licence is contrary to section 386 Cr.P.C, is also not sustainable. The Appellate Court, in an appeal from a conviction, under section 386 (b) Cr.P.C, can alter the nature and extent of the sentence but not so as to enhance the same.

26. The Trial Court in the present case had sentenced the petitioner to rigourous imprisonment of 6 months for the offence under section 279 IPC and rigourous imprisonment of 18 months for the offence under section 304A IPC. The Appellate Court converted the punishment of rigourous imprisonment of 6 months for the offence under section 279 IPC to fine in the sum of Rs. 1000 and converted the punishment of rigourous imprisonment of 18 months for the offence under section 304A IPC to rigourous imprisonment of 12 months. While reducing the punishment for rigourous imprisonment for both the offences, the Appellate Court directed that the driving license of the petitioner shall stand cancelled and debarred him from obtaining any driving license throughout his life.

27. The Appellate Court has not enhanced the sentence but has altered the nature of the sentence whereby the Appellate Court has reduced the component of rigourous imprisonment and altered it to cancellation of the driving licence.

28. The judgments referred to by learned counsel for the Petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In K. Vidyanand Vs. Addl. Licensing Authority, Hyderabad Central Zone, Hyderabad and Ors. (supra); S. Nandkumar Vs. Licensing Officer, Tiruppur South & Anr. (supra) and A. Sekar Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur South (supra) the courts were considering power of the Licensing authority to cancel a license under section 19 and 21 of the Act were in consideration. The power of the Court to suspend and/or cancel the licence under section 20 and 22 of the Act on a conviction was not under consideration.

29. The petitioner is a driver by profession and cancellation of the driving license of the petitioner permanently and debarring him from obtaining a driving licence for life amounts to a punishment that he cannot carry out the vocation of driving throughout his life.

30. The punishment of cancellation of the driving license permanently and debarring him from obtaining any driving license throughout his life literally amounts to his civil death because he would not be in a posi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

tion to carry out his profession for life. 31. Section 22 of the Act stipulates that in relation to a person, who has earlier been convicted of an offence punishable under section 184 of the Act (i.e. rash and negligent act) and thereafter he is convicted of causing, by such dangerous driving of any class or description of motor vehicle, the death of, or grievous hurt to, one or more persons, the Court by which such person is convicted may cancel, or suspend for such period as it may think fit, the driving licence held by such person in so far as it relates to that class or description of motor vehicle. 32. In the present case, as noticed above, the concurrent finding of both the courts below is that petitioner caused the death by driving the offending vehicle i.e. truck trailer, in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased from the back, in such a manner that it caused the death of the deceased on the spot. Clearly, it cannot be said that the action of the Appellate Court in directing cancellation of the license driving license is unwarranted. However, in the facts of the case and particularly keeping in view the provisions of section 22 of the Act, I am of the opinion that cancellation of the license driving license of the petitioner for all classes or description of vehicles is excessive. 33. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be served, in case, the sentence awarded by the Appellate Court of cancellation of the driving license of the petitioner and debarring him from obtaining any driving license throughout his life, is modified to the extent that the driving license of the petitioner is cancelled for the class and description of medium and heavy goods and medium and heavy passenger vehicle and he is debarred from obtaining a driving licence for medium and heavy goods and medium and heavy passenger vehicle. For obtaining a driving licence of other description of vehicles he shall have to undergo a fresh test of competence to drive. 34. Petition is allowed in the above terms. 35. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

31-08-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore-III & Another Versus Vinay Mishra High Court of Karnataka
25-08-2020 Gopal Krishna Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare Development, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
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 Jai Prakash Mishra Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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
04-08-2020 J. William Versus Anupam Mishra High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2020 Vinay Kumar Mishra Versus Union of India Thru. Its Zonal Director, Ncb, Lucknow High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-07-2020 Sunil N. Godhwani Versus State High Court of Delhi
23-07-2020 Sunil Rathee & Others Versus The State of Haryana & Others Supreme Court of India
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 Rishabh Mishra Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh
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
26-06-2020 Viveka Nand Mishra Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-06-2020 Sunil @ Sunil Ashok Gadivaddar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
15-06-2020 Warad Murti Mishra Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Another Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Examination Regulatory Authority, Allahabad & Others Versus Rishabh Mishra & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-06-2020 Sunil Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
02-06-2020 Ramesh Chandra Mishra Versus Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Puri & Others High Court of Orissa
02-06-2020 Ramesh Chandra Mishra Versus Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Puri & Others High Court of Orissa
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
01-05-2020 Manish Kumar Mishra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
29-04-2020 Suresh Chandra Mishra Versus State of Odisha & Another High Court of Orissa
22-04-2020 Sanket Mishra Versus Urvashi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-04-2020 Kaushal Kishore Mishra & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
10-04-2020 Ayodhya Prasad Mishra Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
30-03-2020 Sunil Kumar Mohanty Versus Kalahandi Anchalika Gramya Bank & Others High Court of Orissa
18-03-2020 Dr. Ajay Kumar Versus Indu Bala Mishra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
05-03-2020 M/s. Writers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. V/S Dr. A.K. Mishra, Official Liquidator Supreme Court of India
03-03-2020 Uday Prakash Mishra Versus Poonam Mishra & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
02-03-2020 Badri Prasad Mishra Versus Moti Singh High Court of Chhattisgarh
27-02-2020 Bibhuti Bhushan Mishra & Another V/S Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Others High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 Dhananjay Kumar Mishra And Others V/S Airports Authority of India And Others High Court of Delhi
24-02-2020 M/s. Hindustan Automobiles Through Its Manager Ramanuj Mishra Versus Chief Election Officer of U.P.Lucknow & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
17-02-2020 Vijay Prakash Mishra Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
17-02-2020 Sunil Gandhi & Another V/S A.N. Buildwell Private Limited High Court of Delhi
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
13-02-2020 Padma Mishra Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 Rambabu Singh Thakur Versus Sunil Arora & Others 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 Vijay Kumar Mishra Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Sunil Soni & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Gopal Chandra Mishra & Others Versus The Chairman, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Dumka & Others High Court of Jharkhand
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 Manoj Kumar Mishra Versus Senehlata Choudhary High Court of Jharkhand
31-01-2020 Rajiv Mohan Mishra Versus CPIO Jt. Commissioner (OSD) Central Information Commission
31-01-2020 Union of India & Another Versus P.C. Mishra High Court of Delhi
31-01-2020 Shiv Shankar Mishra Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
30-01-2020 Amit Kumar Mishra Versus The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi & Another) High Court of Delhi
30-01-2020 Sunil Polist Versus CPIO /Manager (CRM)/EDMS Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Information Commission
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
17-01-2020 Rajendra Mishra Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
10-01-2020 Manas Kumar Kar Versus Binaya Mishra High Court of Orissa
09-01-2020 Rajesh Kumar Mishra & Others Versus General Manager, Central Electrical & Mechanical Workshop, SECL, Korba (CG) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
09-01-2020 Pratima Shukla Versus Jagannath Mishra & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
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
13-12-2019 Rajnish Kumar Mishra & Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
12-12-2019 S. Sudarshan Versus G.M. Sunil Kumar High Court of Karnataka
12-12-2019 Sangam Prasad Mishra & Another Versus State of U.P.Throu.Secy.Karmik Lucknow & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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
02-12-2019 MunMun Chakraborty Versus Triveni Constructions Rep. by Satyendra Pandey & Nag Narayan Mishra & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-11-2019 Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement Versus Sunil Godhwani High Court of Delhi
22-11-2019 Dwijendra Nath Mishra Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-11-2019 Sunil Versus Neethu High Court of Kerala
14-11-2019 Soma Barman Nee Datta Versus Sunil Chandra Podder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-11-2019 Anand Mishra & Another Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-11-2019 Tilotama Mishra Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
07-11-2019 Gyan Mishra Versus Sahara India Medical Institute Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-11-2019 Sunil Bhai Sheth Versus M/s. Agricore Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
04-11-2019 Ramesh Mishra Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-10-2019 Arun Kumar Versus Anita Mishra & Others Supreme Court of India
15-10-2019 Jyotsna Mishra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
15-10-2019 Miraj Medical Centre Miraj through Medical Superintendent & Others Versus Sunil Tukaram Danane & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
16-09-2019 Sunil Eknath Bajaj & Others Versus Maheshwari Seva Trust & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-09-2019 Deshaboina Veerababu Versus Sri Ajay Mishra, IAS High Court of for the State of Telangana
13-09-2019 Jugal Kishore Mishra Versus B.P. Singh & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-09-2019 Sunil Kumar Agarwal Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
09-09-2019 Saroj Mishra Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
09-09-2019 Saroj Mishra Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-09-2019 Jay Kant Mishra Versus M/s. S. Chand & Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
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
03-09-2019 Dr. Usha Mishra Versus State of MP. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
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 Pawan Kumar Versus Sunil Kumar High Court of Punjab and Haryana