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



T.V. Maniyappan & Another v/s Pattanakkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Secretary & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- B S AND SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92419MH1946PTC004912

Company & Directors' Information:- BANK OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1906PLC000243

Company & Directors' Information:- CO-OPERATIVE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51226DL1910PLC299886

Company & Directors' Information:- CO-OPERATIVE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51226UP1910PLC000093

Company & Directors' Information:- OPERATIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74300KA2008FTC048079

Company & Directors' Information:- N BANK LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65191WB1924PLC000442

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICE CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U93090KL1946PLC001075

Company & Directors' Information:- P N N BANK LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921TZ1948PLC000153

Company & Directors' Information:- CORPORATION BANK LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1972PLC001067

    WA. No. 390 of 2020

    Decided On, 14 August 2020

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL

    For the Appellants: K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, Sr. Advocate, B. Pramod, Namitha Jyothish, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, T.R. Harikumar, Arjun Raghavan, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Haripal, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P(C) No.1866 of 2018 dated 24/01/2020. The said writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent Pattanakkad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.1144 and others seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P10 order of the Co-operative Arbitration Court and to quash the same; to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the 1st respondent, namely the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to take a decision in ARC No.606 of 2015 in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.

2. The appellants are respondents 2 and 4 in the writ petition. They were the Secretary and Attender respectively of the said Co-operative Bank. An inspection was conducted in the Bank at the instance of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by which large scale irregularities were unearthed, including misappropriation of funds. Following it, Ext.P1 interim report was drawn up. In the interim report, Secretary, the 1st appellant, Attender Sajeevan, the 2nd appellant and Senior Clerk B.Aravind were found responsible for misappropriation of funds and other large scale irregularities committed in the Bank. The interim report recommended for their suspension from service. Basing on the report, an F.I.R. was lodged in the Pattanakkad police station registering Crime No.1129/2015 alleging offences punishable under Sections 177, 403, 405, 408, 409, 415, 420, 477, 477A r/w Section 34 IPC. Later, ARC No.606 of 2015 was filed before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Sections 69 and 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act against the said three persons seeking a declaration and for recovery of money. The amounts misappropriated and sought to be recovered comes to Rs.14,53,01,708/- with future interest and costs. The defendants contested the suit raising all possible contentions including that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The Arbitrator, Additional Registrar, by Ext.P10 Award, disposed of the Arbitration Case on 17/10/2017. According to the Arbitrator, on verifying the interim report dated 16/11/2015 and the final report dated 12/05/2016, nine employees were responsible for the misappropriation of funds. However, only three persons were arrayed as the defendants, which was improper. Therefore, enabling the plaintiff to institute a fresh Arbitration Case arraying other defendants as well, the ARC was disposed of.

3. In the writ petition, the Bank challenged the correctness of the said decision. The learned single Judge found that Ext.P10 Award is illegal and set aside the same and remitted the matter back to the 1st respondent for continuing with the adjudication of the ARC with the defendants already impleaded in the ARC. The appellants challenge that finding.

4. We have heard Adv.Sri. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned senior counsel for the appellants and Sri. Arjun Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in the appeal.

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that even though nine employees of the Bank were held responsible for the alleged misappropriation, the Bank wanted to proceed against the appellants and another alone, and it was purely based on Ext.P1 interim report. But the final report clearly revealed the involvement of other employees as well; however, the stand of the plaintiff in the ARC, not to implead the other delinquent employees as well, was not justifiable. It was under this circumstance that the Arbitrator had decided to close the proceeding, enabling the Bank to institute a fresh proceeding arraying all the persons who were found at fault. The learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in National Spices v. Andhra Bank [1987 (2) KLT 132], P.V. George v. Bank of Madurai Ltd. [1985 KLJ 999]. Relying on Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar [(2006) 5 SCC 173] the learned senior counsel pointed out that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is very limited. He also pressed for a direction to the Arbitrator to complete the proceedings within a period of six months.

6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent relied on an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.792 of 2016 and contended that since the Arbitration Court is not a civil court, the powers of the Arbitrator are limited to the scope of Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rule 67 of the Co-operative Societies Rules.

7. After hearing counsel on both sides, we do not have any doubt in mind that the Arbitrator cannot be justified in closing the proceeding abruptly for the mere reason that the other employees whose names found place in the final report were not impleaded. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the reference was made to the Arbitration Court for the recovery of a whopping amount, nearly Rs.18 crores from the appellants and others, who had defalcated money while working in the employment of the Bank. It is shown that the contesting defendants had contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. But, from the proceedings, it cannot be inferred whether, in the light of the pleadings, opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff Bank for impleading additional defendants and to amend the plaint. Even though it is a quasi-judicial proceedings, having regard to the scope and ambit of Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, we are of the opinion that the said forum has all the powers and trappings of a civil court and any interpretation restricting the scope and ambit would not be in terms of advancement of justice.

8. Even when we are inclined to uphold the finding of the learned single Judge that Ext.P10 cannot stand judicial scrutiny, we are of the definite opinion that it was open to the Arbitrator to invoke the powers under Rule 10(2) of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the plaintiff is the dominus litis, and has to decide who are the necessary parties to the suit, if the plaintiff does not implead all the necessary parties, it is open to the Court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary for an effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. It is the settled proposition of law that a person may be a necessary party in a suit, namely, (a) if he ought to have been joined as a party to the suit and has not been so joined, and (b) if the suit cannot be decided without his presence. Apex Court has repeatedly held that the theory of dominus litis should not be overstretched in the matter of impleading of parties, because it is the duty of the Court to ensure that, if for deciding the real matter in dispute, a person is a necessary party, the said person is impleaded. In order to do complete justice between the parties the power available under sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 CPC shall be invoked by the Court.

9. Whether a suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be decided only by a court or Tribunal considering the issue. A Division Bench of this Court in Radhakrishnan P.S. v. A. Indu [2018 (3) KHC 877] held that whether a person is a necessary party or not is a question of fact depending upon the relief claimed in the suit; but once it is established or the Court is satisfied that he is a necessary party to the suit, it becomes a question of law.

10. As already indicated, sub-rule(2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 CPC enables the Court to consider the question at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, or on its own motion. Therefore, only the Tribunal which is trying the issue can decide as to whether the other employees of the Bank are also necessary parties, for doing complete justice.

11. It is trite that all powers which are not specifically denied by the statute or the statutory rules should be vouchsafed to a Tribunal that it may effectively exercise its judicial function. In this connection, it is apposite to extract the following paragraph from the decision reported in Ebrahim Ismail Kunju v. Phasila Beevi [1991 (1) KLT 861].

"5. The increasing importance of the Tribunals in the vast changing life of the community cannot be ignored by a modern court. A modern ostrich even in the distant deserts may not make such limited use of its eyes. Many valuable rights of the modern citizen are deeply involved with the adjudicator, processes of the Tribunals. Many areas hitherto occupied by courts, are now the domains of the Tribunals. A liberal approach towards their functioning and a larger view about the powers they need, are the requirements of the times. A Tribunal should be facilitated to do all that a court could do in similar situations; and much more than that. Greater speed and a total liberation from the tentacles of technicalities, give a better look and greater efficiency for effectively manned Tribunals. If there be no statutory prohibition, the Tribunal should therefore normally be in a position to ordain its affairs and modulate its procedures in such a manner as to best subserve the interest of the public, and in particular the litigant public.”

12. In Thankam R. Pillai v. Arbitrator [1996 KHC 49], a Division Bench of this Court has held that an Arbitrator functioning under the Co-operative Societies Act is an adjudicatory body coming within the meaning of the term 'Tribunal'. It is a quasijudicial adjudicatory body. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshwar Manjhi v. Management of Sangramgarh Colliery [AIR 1994 SC 1176] are equally applicable to a proceeding pending before the Arbitrator.

13. In a slightly different context, a Division Bench of this Court in Velunni v. Vellakutty [1989 (2) KLT 227] held that even though the Tribunal is not a court, it performs the functions similar to a court; the Tribunal is free to follow any procedure which it considers expedient in the interest of justice so long as the procedure is not inconsistent with the rules of natural justice and does not contravene the provisions of the Act or the Rules. It was also added that, in order to do justice for which it has been constituted, the Tribunal would have power to apply the principles underlining the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, even though not rendered specifically applicable.

14. We are in agreement with the observations of the learned single Judge in Angadi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Nissamu Kutty [2016 (2) KLJ 313] that both Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rule 67 of the Rules ought to be expansively read. In that case, the learned Judge was considering the correctness of an order passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court which was trying an Election Petition, appointing an expert commission for examining the election records. Upholding the order, the learned Judge opined that since there is no express exclusion of the application of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Arbitrator is eminently empowered, under Rule 7 of Order XXXIX, to exercise his powers for the appointment of an expert as he deems appropriate to render complete justice, that it is sine qua non of any forum, be it quasi-judicial or judicial.

15. As a matter of fact, the purport of establishing a tribunal which is an alternate forum

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

is to ease the workload of a superior authority or a court. We are of the opinion that, once the powers of a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code are conferred on a tribunal, it can reasonably be construed that, in the absence of a specific prohibition, it can borrow the provisions of the Code for doing complete justice between the parties. 16. Having considered Sections 70 and 98 of the Cooperative Societies Act, we are of the opinion that even though there are no specific provisions for impleading a necessary party, general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are available to the Arbitrator and that there is no reason why such provisions are not invoked. 17. Thus, though the learned single Judge had directed the 1st respondent to continue the proceedings with the defendants already impleaded, we are of the opinion that, in the given circumstances, and if evidence and materials available on record suggest that there are other persons also to be impleaded as additional defendants, it is always open to the Arbitrator to proceed against them as well, in accordance with law. We also deem it appropriate to direct the Arbitrator to try and dispose of the ARC as expeditiously as possible. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

16-10-2020 R (on the application of Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd) Versus Crown Prosecution Service United Kingdom Supreme Court
15-10-2020 C. Gopala Krishnan Versus The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep. by it's Secretary, TNPSC Road, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-10-2020 M/S. Renuka Poultry Farm Rep. By Its Managing Partner, Sri Badraiah, Karnataka Versus M/s. State Bank of India Rep By Its Assistant General Manager A Rajendra Prasad National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-10-2020 Akul Bhargava & Others Versus Union Public Service Commission & Others High Court of Delhi
06-10-2020 Small Industries Development Bank of India, Chennai & Others Versus Creation Investments Equitas Holdings LLC A wholly owned subsidiary of Creation Investments Social Ventures Fund II LP, United States of America & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2020 HDFC Bank Limited Versus Nilesh Mangaldas Shah & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-10-2020 M/s. CEE DEE Yes IT Parks Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Chennai Versus The Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Supervision, Represented by its Chief General manager-in-charge, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2020 T.K. David Versus Kuruppampady Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
05-10-2020 Cynthia K. Theleepan & Others Versus The Reserve Bank of India, Fort Glacis, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2020 R. Krishnaraj Versus The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Cuddalore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Axis Bank Ltd. Versus National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. & Others SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
28-09-2020 Uzhuva Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., No A 305, Represented by its Secretary, Versus, Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha & Others High Court of Kerala
25-09-2020 M/s. Rajgaria Timber Private Limited & Others Versus State Bank of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-09-2020 Indusind Bank Ltd., West Bengal Versus Kalpana Roy Sarkar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-09-2020 The Visnagar Taluka Co-Operative Purchase & Sales Union Limited (Deleted) Versus District Registrar, Co-Op. Societies High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
22-09-2020 G. Hariram Versus The Regional Director Reserve Bank of India, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 State Bank of India Versus Vineet Agrawal, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-09-2020 M.R. Vasumathi & Another Versus The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 M/s. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Nerkundram Branch, Represented by Through its Authorized Officer, Chennai versus The District Magistrate/The District Collector, Office of District Collectorate, Thiruvallur High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-2020 Atmesh Kumar Roy Versus Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-09-2020 Nandlal Madanlal Zawer Versus Chairman, State Bank of India & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-09-2020 Sandip Kumar Bajaj & Another Versus State Bank of India & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-09-2020 Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service, Rep. by its Authorized Representative J. Anjananandan Versus The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore & Another Versus M/s. Syndicate Bank Central Accounts Department, Manipal High Court of Karnataka
07-09-2020 The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai Versus P. Muthian High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Durga Branch, Varanasi, Through Its Branch Manager & Another Versus Leelawati Devi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-09-2020 Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus State Public Service Tribunal Thru.Chairman & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M. Mangalasamy Versus The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Nandanam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 Dr. Vijay Mallya Versus State Bank of India & Others Supreme Court of India
31-08-2020 Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through The Chairman, CG 492013 Versus Meghraj Pathak, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
31-08-2020 Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through The Chairman, CG 492013 Versus Meghraj Pathak, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
28-08-2020 Jigeshwar Prasad Deshmukh & Another Versus Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda, Durg (CG) & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-08-2020 The Deputy General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Coimbatore & Another Versus M/s. Annamalai Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, P. Velusamy, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2020 Usha Ramachandran Versus Canara Bank, Rep by its Branch Manager, Anna Nagar (East) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 M/s. Narmada Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Pramod Gendre, Chhattisgarh Versus Punjab National Bank Through Its Chief Manager, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-08-2020 ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Through Manager, Rajasthan Versus Ram Prakash Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 L.V. Subba Reddy Petrol Bank Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-08-2020 Indian Overseas Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Rep. by its Chief Manager Versus The District Collector & District Magistrate, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 Josephine Ancilda Versus HDFC Bank Limited, Rep. By its Branch Manager, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 Sudhir Kumar Patodia Versus Union Bank of India High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-08-2020 Venkateshvara Logistics Fleet, Represented by its Authorized Representative Rachya, Hubballi Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bijapur Division, Vijayapur High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
18-08-2020 Amal Peterson Versus The Authorized Officer, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Tirunelveli & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-08-2020 Goods & Service Tax Network Versus Information Commissioner, Cic & Anr High Court of Delhi
18-08-2020 Sri Nandhanam Educational & Social Welfare Trust Vellore District rep. by its Chairman, P.M.N. Mohan Krishnaa Versus The Reserve Bank of India, rep. by its General Manager, Banking Ombudsman, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-08-2020 National Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Uttar Pardesh & Another Versus M/s. Khandelwal Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-08-2020 The Chairman, State Bank of India, Mumbai & Others Versus P.C. Unnikrishnan, Rural Marketing & Recovery Officers, State Bank of India, Kollam & Others High Court of Kerala
14-08-2020 Bank of India, Represented through its Chief Manager Versus The District Magistrate, District Collector, Virudhunagar & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-08-2020 RVS Networks India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Venkata Swamy Ravuri & Others Versus Bank of Baroda, rep. by its Chief Manager High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-08-2020 P. Balamurugan Versus The Controller of Examinations, The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-08-2020 Sri Sai Rama Tractors, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam rep. by its Partner Versus State Bank of India, rep. by its Authorised Officer, Visakhapatnam Dist. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-08-2020 Krishnamoorthy & Another Versus Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Periyasevalai, Rep. by its Special Officer & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-08-2020 Maranalloor Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Ltd. Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus The Registrar /Director, Directorate of Dairy Development, Pattom & Others High Court of Kerala
10-08-2020 Vipin K. Hari & Another Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
10-08-2020 Sri Kalakuteers Apartment Flat Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Limited, rep. by its Chief Promoter & Another Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary Cooperation Dept., Secretariat, Hyd. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
07-08-2020 Syed Ahmar Ali Hasmi Versus Union Public Service Commission, through Secretary Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
05-08-2020 M/s. Siti Cable Network Ltd. & Another Versus Commissioner of Service Tax & Another Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
04-08-2020 The Managing Committee, (Under Order of Suspension), The Vellathooval Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Represented by Its President Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Office of The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Idukki & Others High Court of Kerala
31-07-2020 M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd., Cement Grinding Unit, Kancheepuram Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (South Zonal Bench), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2020 The Karassery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kozhikode, Represented by Its General Manager Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Co-Operative Societies, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
29-07-2020 Bank of Baroda, Through Its Manager, Maharashtra Versus Balaprasad Bansilal Biyani National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-07-2020 State Bank of India, SCT Engineering College Branch, Pappanamcode, Thiruvananthapuram Versus V. Geetha, Sreenandanam & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
28-07-2020 Dr. Uma Suresh Versus The Authorised Officer, The National Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-07-2020 M/s. Sainath Security Force & Man Power Service, Represented by its Proprietor B.S. Mannur Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Under Secretary, Bangaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
27-07-2020 Punjab National Bank, Guwahati Versus Madhab Kumar Das & Another & Others High Court of Gauhati
22-07-2020 M/s. Rajesh Export Limited, Represented by its Chairman Rajesh Mehta Versus Reserve Bank of India & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-07-2020 Vardhaman Mahila Co-op. Urban Bank Limited Versus A. Vijaya Kumari & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-07-2020 State Bank Of India Mini Secretariat Through Its Branch Manager Hisar Haryana Versus Sukh Dass National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 Manohar Bandopanth Belekar Versus Dr. Annasaheb Chougule Vadgaon Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
14-07-2020 M/s. Sanwaliya Tractor Sales & Service, Rajasthan & Others Versus Bhagwati Devi Bhatt & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-07-2020 Prabhat Ranjan Deo Versus Union Public Service Commission & Others High Court of Delhi
13-07-2020 Rakesh Wadhwan, Shareholder (Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd.) Versus Bank of India, Bandra, & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
09-07-2020 New Nagpur Mahila Gramin Vikas Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. & Another Versus Suman Balaji Thakre National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-07-2020 Packiyalakshmi Versus Joint Registrar/Managing Director, The Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Tirunelveli & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-07-2020 B.A.S. Devi Prasad Versus The Telangana Co-operative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-07-2020 All Orissa State Bank Officers Housing Co-Operative Society Versus State of Odisha & Others High Court of Orissa
03-07-2020 Axis Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Mumbai & Others SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
01-07-2020 Shyamal Kanti Mondal Versus State Bank of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-07-2020 Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Mohan Co Operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi & Others Versus Jose George Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
30-06-2020 Union Bank of India, Through Shri R. Rajendra Prasad, Branch Manager, Raichur Versus M/s. Tirumala Enterprises, Raichur National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-06-2020 Union Bank of India, Punjab Versus Usha Arora & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Kejriwal Mining Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Allahabad Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-06-2020 Tshaka N O & Others Versus Standard Bank of South Africa Limited & Another Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
24-06-2020 M.P. Satheesan, Senior Manager (Retired), Kannur District Co-Operative Bank, Kannur Versus The Kannur District Co-Operative Bank, Represented by General Manager, Kannur & Others High Court of Kerala
22-06-2020 Bank of Baroda Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
22-06-2020 Sushma Kumari Versus The Bank of India, Bandra (E) Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
19-06-2020 Toronto-Dominion Bank Versus Young Supreme Court of Canada
19-06-2020 Sri Bhagavathy Dyes & Chemicals, Kochi, Represented by Its Proprietor, B. Ravindranath Versus Alleppey Parcel Service, Alappuzha, Represented by T.T. Kuruvila, Proprietor & Others High Court of Kerala
18-06-2020 State Bank of India, Bombay Thru. Chairman & Others Versus S.B. Singh High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
16-06-2020 Dr. Vijay Mallya Versus State Bank of India & Others Supreme Court of India
16-06-2020 Subhash Mehta Versus HDFC Bank Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 State Bank of India Versus Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, West Bengal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Awadhesh Kumar Versus Multi State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-06-2020 Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Versus State by Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
05-06-2020 Neralur Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd. & Others Versus State of Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-06-2020 Secretary, Keechery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Ernakulam Versus P.M. Sajitha Nizar Alias Sajitha & Others High Court of Kerala
04-06-2020 The Karnataka Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary Versus Dr. S.S. Madhukeshwara & Another High Court of Karnataka
02-06-2020 A. Janakiraman Versus The Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, rep. by its Chief Executive, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association, Reg No: 321/MDS, Rep by its Joint General Secretary, R. Muthukumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras