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



Sushovanpal v/s Sharmistha Pal @ Sharmistha Mazumdar & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- S PAL & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1983PTC036891

    RFA. No. 563 of 2018

    Decided On, 23 July 2018

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

    For the Appellant: Sumit Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, K. Iyer, Bankey Bihari, R2, Chittaranjan Dutta Biswas, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Oral:

Caveat No. 648/2018

Counsel appears for the caveator. Caveat accordingly stands discharged.

CM No. 28645/2018 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions

CM stands disposed of.

RFA No.563/2018 & CM Nos. 28643/2018(stay) & 28644/2018 (U/s 151 CPC)

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant no.1 in the suit, impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 15.5.2018, by which the trial court has decreed the suit for partition filed by the sister of the appellant, with respect to the 50% ownership interest in the property bearing no.40/205, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. Whereas the appellant was the defendant no.1, the defendant no.2 in the suit was the mother of the appellant/defendant no.1 and the plaintiff, the defendant no.2/mother supported the case of the respondent no.1/ plaintiff for partition of the suit property. In fact, the aged mother in her written statement filed as defendant no.2 in the suit has leveled grave charges of her mistreatment by the appellant/defendant no.1/son, and has prayed that the partition suit be decreed, as per the ownership of the property existing in terms of a Lease Deed dated 15.6.1992 of DDA giving joint ownership rights in the suit property to the defendant no.2/respondent no.2/mother and the father of the appellant/defendant no.1 and respondent no.l/plaintiff late Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal, the husband of the respondent no.2/defendant no.2. Partition was claimed only with respect to the 50% interest as 50% of the remaining interest was already sold to a third person/buyer.

2(i) That the suit property was leased by a Perpetual Lease Deed by the DDA in favour of Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal (husband)and the respondent no.2/defendant no.2/Smt. Sudha Pal (wife) is an undisputed fact. This document being the Lease Deed giving joint ownership rights in the property to Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal and Smt. Sudha Pal, is dated 15.6.1992, and this document has not been challenged by the appellant/defendant no.2. I have gone through the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant no.1 along with the counsel for the appellant/defendant no.1 in order to examine the plea of the appellant/defendant no.1 raised before this Court that though the Lease Deed was in the joint names of the mother and the father, the mother was not the half owner and that the father was the sole owner because the Lease Deed was executed only because of a policy of DDA for giving a displaced person a property jointly with his wife. What was argued by the appellant/defendant no.1 before this Court, (for the first time) dehors any such specific pleadings of the appellant/defendant no.1 in the trial court as regards the date and number of a DDA policy, that though the Lease Deed dated 15.6.1992 was in the joint names of the mother Smt. Sudha Pal and the father Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal, but Smt. Sudha Pal was not the co-owner of the property and that the father Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal was the sole owner of the property inasmuch as the father being a displaced person from East Pakistan, he was to be the sole owner of the suit property which was allotted to the father as a displaced person, however the Lease Deed dated 15.6.1992 was executed by the DDA in favour of Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal and Smt. Sudha Pal because of a policy of DDA. As already stated above, the written statement of appellant/defendant no.1 does not refer to any specific policy by its date and number which required the lease deed to be executed in favour of displaced person only with the wife of the displaced person. The appellant/defendant no.1 therefore cannot for the first time in this appeal raise this plea before this Court, and this is all the more so because no policy of DDA was proved by the appellant/defendant no. 1 during the course of leading of evidence by the appellant/defendant no. 1.

(ii) Even if such a plea was raised, the challenge to the Lease Deed dated 15.6.1992 that though written in the lease deed that both mother and father were joint owners, it was only the father who was the sole owner, then such a plea would obviously be time barred because the Lease Deed executed by the DDA in favour of the father and mother is dated 15.6.1992, whereas this oral challenge for the first time is raised before this Court in the year 2018, and a limitation to challenge the validity to a document as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act,1963 is three years from the knowledge of the document which is sought to be cancelled. It is undisputed on behalf of the appellant/defendant no.1 that the appellant/defendant no.1 knew the existence of the Lease Deed dated 15.6.1992 by the DDA in favour of the mother and father right since inception. Therefore, even otherwise the plea of the appellant/defendant no.1 would be timebarred preventing the appellant/defendant no.1 from questioning the half ownership of the mother in the suit property in terms of the Perpetual Lease Deed dated 15.6.1992.

(iii) Even on merits, I fail to understand as to how a son can dispute the grant of half ownership rights in a property by the husband to his wife, because even for the sake of argument we take that the suit property was allotted to the husband Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal because of being a displaced person on account of his having left a property in East Pakistan, surely a husband can take an ownership of a property jointly in his name with his wife and which will have the effect that he having gifted his half ownership rights in the suit property to his wife Smt. Sudha Pal in this case. Also, there does not arise any issue of the appellant/defendant no.1 challenging the Lease Deed, once the father Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal in his life time got the Lease Deed executed jointly in his favour and his wife and that Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal during his life time never questioned the lease deed or he executed any private document that he was the sole owner of the suit property and that his wife was not the co-owner to the extent of half in the suit property.

(iv) Therefore, all arguments urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant no.1 to question the 50% ownership of the mother, are without any basis and therefore rejected. After conclusion of arguments urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant no.1, counsel for the appellant/defendant no.1 took instructions from the appellant/defendant no.1 as to whether the appeal should be pressed or not in order to see if the appeal is not pressed possibly appellant/defendant no.1 can repair relationship with his aged mother, but counsel for the appellant/defendant no.1 on instructions from the appellant/defendant no.1 states that the appellant/defendant no.1 invites a judgment. In fact, the counsel appearing for the respondent no.2/defendant no.2/mother very sincerely states that the appellant/defendant no.1 has left no stone unturned to harass and trouble his aged mother, and this Court should pass a judgment and clarify the ownership rights, otherwise the appellant/defendant no.1 will keep on harassing his aged mother.

3. The next aspect to be considered is that whether the suit property in the hands of Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal was an ancestral property, ie the plea is that once the suit property is an ancestral property, then the suit property would be of the HUF of Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal. It may be noted that parties are governed by the Dayabhaga School of Law, they having their original roots in the State of West Bengal.

4. So far as this aspect is concerned, all ancestral properties are no longer HUF properties because if a person inherits a property from his paternal ancestor, the inheritance will be taken as HUF only if the inheritance is prior to the year 1956. Any inheritance by a person of property from his paternal ancestor after 1956 makes the inheritance as a self-acquired property and not an HUF property. This is held by the Supreme Court in the judgments in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs. Chander Sen and Others, (1986) 3 SCC 567 and Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204. I have in the judgment in the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. Dhani Ram and Others, 227 (2016) DLT 217 expounded upon the ratios of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chander Sen (supra) and Yudhishter (supra ), and I have observed that whenever a case of HUF is set up it must specifically be pleaded as to how the property is an HUF property because after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, inheritance of a property as an HUF property is only if the property is already inherited prior to the year 1956. After the year 1956, if a person inherits property, in view of the aforesaid ratios of the judgments of the Supreme Court, inheritance would be as a self-acquired property. The ratio of the judgment in the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sagar Gambhir vs. Sukhdev Singh Gambhir and Ors 241(2017 )DLT 98; 2017 (162) DRJ 575 . The relevant para of the Division Bench judgment in Sagar Gambhir’s case (supra) is para 10 and which reads as under:-

'10. In Chander Sen's case (supra), the Supreme Court held that after the promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the traditional view under the Hindu Law no longer remained the legal position. This decision was followed incase (supra) the Supreme Court held that after the promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the traditional view under the Hindu Law no longer remained the legal position. This decision was followed in Yudhishter's case (supra). We agree with the legal position noted by the learned Single Judge which flows out of the two decisions of the Supreme Court, which would be as under:-

"(i) If a person dies after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and there is no HUF existing at the time of the death of such a person, inheritance of an immovable property of such a person by his successors-in-interest is no doubt inheritance of an 'ancestral' property but the inheritance is as a self-acquired property in the hands of the successor and not as an HUF property although the successor(s) indeed inherits 'ancestral' property i.e. a property belonging to his paternal ancestor.

(ii) The only way in which a Hindu Undivided Family/joint Hindu family can come into existence after 1956 (and when a joint Hindu family did not exist prior to 1956) is if an individual's property is thrown into a common hotchpotch. Also, once a property is thrown into a common hotchpotch, it is necessary that the exact details of the specific date/month/year etc. of creation of an HUF for the first time by throwing a property into a common hotchpotch have to be clearly pleaded and mentioned and which requirement is a legal requirement because of Order VI Rule 4 CPC which provides that all necessary factual details of the cause of action must be clearly stated. Thus, if an HUF property exists because of its such creation by throwing of selfacquired property by a person in the common hotchpotch, consequently there is entitlement in coparceners etc. to a share in such HUF property.

(iii) An HUF can also exist if paternal ancestral properties are inherited prior to 1956, and such status of parties qua the properties has continued after 1956 with respect to properties inherited prior to 1956 from paternal ancestors. Once that status and position continues even after 1956; of the HUF and of its properties existing; a coparcener etc. will have a right to seek partition of the properties.

(iv) Even before 1956, an HUF can come into existence even without inheritance of ancestral property from paternal ancestors, as HUF could have been created prior to 1956 by throwing of individual property into a common hotchpotch. If such an HUF continues even after 1956, then in such a case a coparcener etc of an HUF was entitled to partition of the HUF property."

5. In the present case, it is seen that there is no pleading whatsoever of the appellant/defendant no.1 in the written statement that Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal has inherited a property from his paternal ancestor before the year 1956. Therefore, the case of the appellant/defendant no.1 is completely bereft of requisite pleadings for existence of an HUF. Be it noted that it is not the case of the appellant/defendant no.1 that the father created an HUF for the first time by putting the suit property into the common hotchpotch after the year 1956. Therefore, the contention of the appellant/defendant no.1 that the suit property is an ancestral or HUF property is liable to be rejected inasmuch as the ancestral property does not automatically become an HUF property.

6. Another reason for rejecting the argument urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant no.1 of the suit property being an HUF property (called as an ancestral property as per the pleading of the appellant) is that even if Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal got allotted the suit property on account of his leaving any property in East Pakistan, there had to be a pleading of the appellant/defendant no.1 that a specific property left behind by Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal was a property which Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal had inherited from his which specific paternal ancestor. Once again the pleading of the appellant/defendant no.1 is conspicuously silent in this regard, and therefore, on completely vague pleading no case can be made out of the suit property being an HUF property.

7. Learned counsel for th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e appellant/defendant no.1 argued that the suit was at the stage of evidence and could not have been disposed of by a judgment by applying Order XII Rule 6 CPC, however, I cannot agree because Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be invoked at any stage of suit, and the suit, and this provision applies more so when trial unnecessarily taking place, provided of course the court proceeds on admitted facts and pleadings. The admitted facts in the present case show that the suit property to be a joint ownership in the name of Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal and Smt. Sudha Pal/defendant no.2/respondent no.2 and the fact that there is remotely no pleading of existence of an HUF coming into existence either because of inheritance by Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal of the ancestral property prior to the year 1956 or Sh. Shayam Sunder Pal creating an HUF after the year 1956 by throwing the property into a common hotchpotch. 8. The present is a classic case of aged parent/mother being harassed by her children for properties. Obviously, it is not unexpected any longer in this age that we are living in, and which is vividly depicted in a Hindi Movie ‘102 Not Out’. Obviously this case is nothing else but a copy of the Movie ‘102 Not Out’. This appeal therefore being completely frivolous, meritless and an abuse of the process of law is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- which shall be paid by the appellant/defendant no.1 to the defendant no.2/respondent no.2/mother within a period of six weeks from today.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

12-06-2020 Satya Pal Singh & Others State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
22-05-2020 Jai Pal & Others Versus Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Col Ramneesh Pal Singh Versus Sugandhi Aggarwal High Court of Delhi
27-02-2020 Principal and Superintendent of SSKM and IPGME & Another Versus Arun Kumar Pal West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-02-2020 Kiran Pal Saini Versus State of Uttarakhand High Court of Uttarakhand
19-02-2020 Mahender Pal Narang Versus Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
14-02-2020 Asim Kumar Pal & Others Versus Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-02-2020 Harvinder Pal Singh Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
07-02-2020 Desh Pal Malik (Chaudhary) & Others Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Dr. S. P. Mukherjee, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
06-02-2020 Kanwar Pal Sharma Versus State (NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 Mahender Pal Jindal & Others Versus State of Haryana & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-02-2020 Dharam Pal @ Dharma Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
03-02-2020 Swami Chinmayanand Alias Krishna Pal Singh Versus State of U.P High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
31-01-2020 Inder Pal Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
31-01-2020 Inder Pal & Another Versus State High Court of Delhi
27-01-2020 Yoginder Pal V/S High Court of Tripura through Registrar General, Tripura High Court, Agartala (Tripura) & Others High Court of Tripura
21-01-2020 Annapurna Versus Ram Shringar Pal High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
17-01-2020 Dr. Indira Pal & Another Versus Samar Nag, Managing Director, Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-01-2020 Om Pal Singh Versus Disciplinary Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
07-01-2020 Biswanath Pal Versus Sankar Nath Pal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-01-2020 Shanti Chandra Pal & Another Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-01-2020 Kunwar Pal Versus State High Court of Delhi
18-12-2019 Kanwar Pal Singh Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another Supreme Court of India
17-12-2019 Raj Kumari & Others Versus Surinder Pal Sharma Supreme Court of India
12-12-2019 Mecon Limited Versus Sri Buddha Prasad Pal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-12-2019 Hem Pal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
16-11-2019 State of H.P. Versus Mahi Pal High Court of Himachal Pradesh
13-11-2019 Dr. Goutam Pal Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-11-2019 Samir Kumar Dutta & Others Versus Kalipada Pal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-11-2019 Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Harinder Pal Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-10-2019 Md. Safique (C.M.D.) Versus Biswajit Pal & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
09-10-2019 Jitender Pal Verma Versus M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2019 Raj Pal Ranwa Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
01-10-2019 Colonel Ramesh Pal Singh Versus Sughandhi Aggarwal High Court of Delhi
24-09-2019 Dr. Ashok Kumar Giri alias Ashok Giri Versus Koushik Pal & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-09-2019 Dr. Ashok Kumar Giri alias Ashok Giri Versus Koushik Pal & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-09-2019 Vijay Pal Versus Shobha Devi High Court of Delhi
13-09-2019 M/s. Contentra Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Nikhil Pal High Court of Delhi
12-09-2019 M/s. Neo Built Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Tapas Kumar Pal & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
11-09-2019 Parveen Mehmi Versus Surinder Pal High Court of Punjab and Haryana
27-08-2019 Chakra Pal Singh & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
23-08-2019 M/s. Universal Infrastructure & Another Versus Binay Pal Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-08-2019 Hans Pal Singh & Others Versus Tarsem Singh & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
23-07-2019 Surinder Pal Soni V/S Sohan Lal (D) thru L.R. and Others. Supreme Court of India
23-07-2019 Surinder Pal Soni Versus Sohan Lal (D) Thru Lr & Others Supreme Court of India
22-07-2019 Kanwar Pal Singh Versus State Of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-07-2019 Naresh Pal Singh Versus Naresh Pal Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-07-2019 Beant Kaur & Another Versus Inder Pal Singh Rana (since deceased), through his legal heirs & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
09-07-2019 Nitya Nand Prasad Gupta Versus The State of Bihar through the Pinki Pal, Secretary, Department of Housing & Urban Development & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-07-2019 Anand Institute of International Studies, Through Shrimati Arun Pal Anand(Prop/Director), Madhya Pradesh Versus Sani Jaggi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2019 Santosa Kumar Pal Versus Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department of Personnel And Training, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
12-06-2019 Jiwan Alias Sarjivan & Others Versus Ram Pal & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
04-06-2019 Archita Pal Versus Priyanka Chandra Naskar & Others High Court of Karnataka
31-05-2019 Sagnik Pal & Others Versus National Institute of Technology, Agartala & Others High Court of Tripura
20-05-2019 Pal Singh & Others Versus State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
14-05-2019 Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. & Another Versus Chander Pal Tyagi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-05-2019 Kanwaljit Kaur & Others Versus Dharam Pal & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-05-2019 Narendra Pal Singh Versus Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.), Site Office Behind Chandigarh Group of Colleges & Another Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
09-05-2019 Rishi Pal Gupta & Another Versus M/s. N.H. Matcon Through its Partner Sunny Bansal & Another Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
07-05-2019 Gurminder Kaur Versus Mohinder Pal Singh & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
30-04-2019 Kartik Pal & Others Versus S.K. Akbar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-04-2019 Khitish Paul @ Khitish Chandra Pal Versus Mohhamad Faruk & Others High Court of Tripura
24-04-2019 Union of India & Others Versus Dharam Pal Supreme Court of India
16-04-2019 Krishna Pal Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-04-2019 Pratap Pal Versus Mukul Bose & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
11-04-2019 Harjeet Kaur Baweja @ Dr. Rani Phlaphongphanich Versus Ravinder Pal Singh Baweja & Others High Court of Delhi
10-04-2019 Chittru Versus Pal & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
08-04-2019 Jagadish Chandra Pal & Another Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-04-2019 Raj Rani & Others Versus Anand Pal & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
01-04-2019 Tara Chand & Others Versus Siri Pal & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
29-03-2019 Sohan Pal Goel Versus Shaleen Goel High Court of Delhi
27-03-2019 Banwari Lal (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs. & Another Versus Mahender Pal Gupta High Court of Delhi
26-03-2019 Ex Hav Kushal Pal Yadav Versus Union of India & Others Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
22-03-2019 Ravi Pal Versus All India Sugar Trade Association (AISTA) & Another Competition Commission of India
19-03-2019 Virender Pal Singh Versus Central Bank of India High Court of Delhi
08-03-2019 Joginder Pal Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
22-02-2019 Binay Ranjan Pal & Another Versus Gita Rani Jana & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-02-2019 M/s. Kothari Marcentiles Pvt. Ltd. & Rep. by its prop., Bhagwan Das Kothari Others Versus Swapan Kr. Pal West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-02-2019 Jahaj Pal Versus District Inspector of Schools & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-02-2019 Panchsheel Constructions Through: Its Attorney Balik Ram Gautam Versus Davinder Pal Singh Chauhan & Another High Court of Delhi
14-02-2019 Vijay Pal Versus Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway Head Quarters, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
14-02-2019 Tapan Pal Versus Pronab Pal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-02-2019 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Aji Pal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-02-2019 Surendra Pal Singh Versus UOI & Others High Court of Delhi
11-02-2019 Surendra Pal Singh Versus UOI & Others High Court of Delhi
05-02-2019 Jai Pal Pardhan Versus Union of India High Court of Punjab and Haryana
04-02-2019 Court on Its Own Motion V/S Jagdeep Pal Singh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
04-02-2019 Court on Its Own Motion Versus Jagdeep Pal Singh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
25-01-2019 Suraj Pal Versus State of Haryana Supreme Court of India
25-01-2019 Satender Pal & Others Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
10-01-2019 Rajendra Prasad Pal & Another Versus State of U.P.Thru. Prin Secy Deptt of Basic Edu & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
10-01-2019 Janki (Deleted Since Deceased) Through Her Lr Sh Ram Pal Versus Gurdev & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
07-01-2019 Narinder Pal Agarwal Versus Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-01-2019 Biswanath Pal Versus Sankar Nath Pal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-01-2019 Om Pal Singh & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-12-2018 Future General India Insurance Company Versus Krishan Pal & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
18-12-2018 Neeraj Pal & Others Versus Central Warehousing Corporation High Court of Delhi
17-12-2018 Swaraj Mazda Ltd. (Now Known as Sml Isuzu Ltd.) Versus Vijay Pal Adhana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
11-12-2018 Dharam Pal Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-12-2018 Mahender Pal Versus Delhi Transport Corporation High Court of Delhi