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



Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its President, Kanchipuram v/s Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its Senior Manager(Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram


Company & Directors' Information:- U. P. POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32201UP1999SGC024928

Company & Directors' Information:- NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40104MH1987GOI149458

Company & Directors' Information:- D B POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109MP2006PLC019008

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40105WB1919PLC003263

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U40101WB2003PLC097340

Company & Directors' Information:- L V S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100TG1996PTC023552

Company & Directors' Information:- S L S POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109AP2005PLC047008

Company & Directors' Information:- S L V POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40102KA2002PTC030448

Company & Directors' Information:- S. E. POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40106GJ2010PLC091880

Company & Directors' Information:- SENIOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL1996PTC082386

Company & Directors' Information:- D C POWER LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40109TG1996PLC025996

Company & Directors' Information:- V. K. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH2004PLC149538

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U50101WB1997PLC084060

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29300PB1996PLC017836

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74990TN2010PLC078041

Company & Directors' Information:- REP CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26921TN2005PTC055138

Company & Directors' Information:- L L ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26960AS2002PTC006815

Company & Directors' Information:- B V POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40106DL2011PTC213428

Company & Directors' Information:- A B T MADRAS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50101TZ2002PTC010090

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND H POWER COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109UP1965PTC003067

Company & Directors' Information:- B P INDUSTRIAL CORPN. PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15312UP1973PTC087037

Company & Directors' Information:- B R POWER LTD [Active] CIN = U40106WB1995PLC073567

Company & Directors' Information:- G C ENTERPRISE (INDIA) PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U19129WB1992PTC055125

Company & Directors' Information:- P R B POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101TG1995PTC020647

Company & Directors' Information:- S V G POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40300AP2012PTC084435

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31900DL1995PTC070096

Company & Directors' Information:- A V A INDUSTRIAL CORPN PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29191TZ1956PTC000261

Company & Directors' Information:- M POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31908MH2012PTC234343

Company & Directors' Information:- J K ENTERPRISE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U55101AS1986PTC002580

Company & Directors' Information:- S S G ENTERPRISE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2000PTC103084

Company & Directors' Information:- A N S INDIA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101DL2014PTC266873

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY LTD. [Active] CIN = U36900WB1927PLC005621

Company & Directors' Information:- M T ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U19201WB2001PTC092823

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15420MH1921PTC000947

Company & Directors' Information:- D T POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40300AP2015PTC097226

Company & Directors' Information:- G S POWER LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40102KA2010PLC054033

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER AND POWER PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U31300AS1989PTC003282

Company & Directors' Information:- B M P ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210TN2005PTC056329

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31101MH1996PTC103177

Company & Directors' Information:- M N ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2012PTC238475

Company & Directors' Information:- P D M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40104AS2014PTC011780

Company & Directors' Information:- B & G POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40105PB2010PLC033765

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34102DL2006PTC156978

Company & Directors' Information:- S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19202DL1986PTC026505

Company & Directors' Information:- G M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40105PN2003PTC017857

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31102WB1983PTC036315

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109PY2004PTC001824

Company & Directors' Information:- K P M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40102KA2008PTC046804

Company & Directors' Information:- D P S MADRAS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210TN1986PTC012702

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER-X PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1970PTC005331

Company & Directors' Information:- S K POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31101KA2006PTC039172

Company & Directors' Information:- R G D POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U41000TG1996PTC023809

Company & Directors' Information:- M M R POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31104DL2008PTC174079

Company & Directors' Information:- S J POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45207HR2012PTC045937

Company & Directors' Information:- C V & CO (MADRAS) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN1972PTC006161

Company & Directors' Information:- T C POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101PB2009PTC033405

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29130PN2014PTC151053

Company & Directors' Information:- H. & T. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40106MH2016PTC287646

Company & Directors' Information:- S & O POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40107MH2010PTC206447

Company & Directors' Information:- V D M-POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC262999

Company & Directors' Information:- N D ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200WB2013PTC222749

Company & Directors' Information:- W N POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101JK2013PTC004009

Company & Directors' Information:- N D ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200JH2013PTC001004

Company & Directors' Information:- G C I POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40107KA2010PTC053656

Company & Directors' Information:- R. C. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40100GJ2009PTC058005

Company & Directors' Information:- G. N. ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14294RJ2018PTC061147

Company & Directors' Information:- D V N POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101TG2007PTC053069

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2007PTC161616

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999KA1942PTC000292

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIAL UNION PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U91110KL1901PTC000443

    S.A. No. 1069 of 2009

    Decided On, 14 September 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

    For the Appellant: V. Selvaraj, Advocate. For the Respondent: Vijayshankar, SCGSC.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment and decree rendered by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.34 of 2006 dated 19.08.2008 in and by which he confirmed the judgment and decree rendered by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram in O.S.No.54 of 2004 dated 06.01.2006.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. Against the concurrent findings of the Courts below granting permanent injunction, the aggrieved defendant has filed the present second appeal.

2. The plaintiff is the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited located within the campus of Madras Atomic Power Station at Kalpakkam. It is a Government of India enterprises. The defendant is the Employees Union in the plaintiff’s establishment.

3. The plaint averment is that, the plaintiff’s organisation is a public sector undertaking under the Department of Atomic Energy. It is engaged in production of electric power to cater the needs of Southern states of India. Considering the sensitivity of the plaintiff’s organisation, the Government of Tamil Nadu has notified in the gazattee on 03/11/1995 as prohibited area, the entire area where the plaintiff establishment is located. Thereby the access to general public is restricted.

4. In the Joint Consultative Council Meeting held at Mumbai on 26/08/1995, understanding arrived among the Management and the Unions that the Employee’s Union will not conduct any demonstration, slogan shouting, union meeting within 1.6 Kms of the plant premises.

5. Contrary to the agreement, whenever the Union wants to agitate against the Management, the members of the defendant Union used to assemble near the west gate and also in front of the Administration Building Portico and other prohibited area raise slogans, conduct gate meetings, prevent loyal employees from ingress and egress to the plant.

6. On 02/04/2002 in one such gate meeting the crew members of the organisation were badly affected. It caused hardship for the other employees to have ingress and egress to the plant. Being a atomic power plant, it runs round the clock with three shifts. The conduct of the defendant Union members jeopardise the safety and security of the plant.

7. Hence, suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its office bearers, members, agents and any other persons acting on their behalf and their behest, conducting any demonstration, gherao, raising slogans inside the premises or within the prohibited area and also within the 100 meters distance from Central Industrial Security Force ( CISF) main gate ( South gate), conducting sit in strike and preventing other shift workers from attending to their shift work within the plant and prohibited area and also within the 100 meters distance from CISF main gate ( South gate), interfering with the ingress or egress of the employees, officers, customers, guests of the plaintiff to and from the power station in any manner.

8. In their written statement, the defendant Union denied the plaint averments. It denied the existence of any agreement in Joint Consultative Meeting or a Code of Discipline between the plaintiff’s Management and the defendant Union as averred in the plaint. The maintainability of the suit questioned on the ground that the subject matter of the suit is an industrial dispute. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was claimed that the Union has right to agitate in lawful manner after giving statutory notice for strike. Their right to strike cannot be washed away. The south gate is 4 Km away from the operating island which is the important zone containing nuclear installation. The defendants never indulged in any unlawful activities till date. The gate meetings are conducted in a lawful manner without causing any inconvenience to anybody. Being a vexatious litigation the suit has to dismissed.

9. The Trial Court after considering the rival pleadings had framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed?

2) What other relief?

10. One witness on each side and 9 exhibits on the side of the plaintiff, 7 exhibits on the side of the defendant were marked. The Trial Court relying upon the judgments reported in 1994 (2) LW 476, 2002 LLR 254, Delhi HC and 2002 LLR 393, Calcutta HC, held that the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits of these nature to protect the civil right of the other employees who are entitled to have free ingress and egress to the plant without any disturbance.

11. Refering Ex.A-2 the Government Gazattee notification dated 15/02/1989 declaring the area around the Atomic Plant as prohibited area by the state Government and Ex.A-1 the Joint Consultative Council meeting resolution, the trial Court granted permanent injunction restraining the defendant union members fom carrying on union activities within 100 meters from the main gate. The trial Court has taken into consideration the security risk in allowing the defendants union members and representatives to conduct gate meeting or slogan raising within the prohibited area and near the sensitive installations.

12. The appeal suit filed by the defendant was dismissed by the first appellate Court confirming the reasons assigned by the trial Court.

13. In this second appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that, civil suit is not maintainable to restrain the recognised trade union form exercising its rights in the form of protest and by conducting gate meetings. The alleged understanding between the Management and the Unions in the Joint Consultative Council is not a settlement under Section 18 or under Section 12(3) of the Industrial disputes Act. The prohibitory decree of injunction had taken away the fundamental right of the workman under Article 19 of the Constitution.

14. The learned counsel for the appellant referring Ex.A-1 submitted that the minitues of the JCC would show that there was no agreement regarding the distance. Clause 16.5 only resolve that the unions should follow the code of discipline. In fact, subsequent to the suit, the Management and the Unions have arrived at a 12(3) Settlement on 05/08/2017 agreeing to follow the standing order and code of discipline while strike. However, the permanent injunction granted in this case is taken undue advantage by the Management and they are not permitting any form of strike.

15. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel representing the respondent submitted that the civil suit is always maintainable whenever civil right is at peril. The plaintiff organisation was forced to seek legal recourse after the appellant union members unmindful of the security risk indulged in gate meetings disturbing the crew members and slogan shouting in the front of the administrative office disturbing the peaceful function of the plant. The right of the union to strike is not prohibited it is only restricted to 100 meters from the main gate. Any reasonable restriction to the fundamental right is permissible in law. No right is absolute without restriction. As far as the decree of permanent injunction granted by the Civil Court it is only upto 100 meters from the south gate and the area declared as prohibited by the State Government.

16. Right to form association or union is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution. This covers variety of right including expressing the grievance in lawful and peaceful manner. However this right is subject to reasonable restriction in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of India, public order and morality.

17. In All India Bank Employees Association -vs- National Industrial Tribunal and others [(1962) 3 SCR 269], wherein the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court specifically held that even very liberal interpretation of sub-clause (C) of clause (1) of Article 19 cannot lead to the conclusion that trade unions have a guaranteed right to an effective collective bargaining or to strike, either as part of collective bargaining or otherwise.

In Communist Party of India (M) -vs- Bharat Kumar and others [(1998) 1 SCC 201], a three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court approved the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court by holding thus:

“….There cannot be any doubt that the fundamental rights of the people as a whole cannot be subservient to the claim of fundamental right of an individual or only a section of the people. In this case, the Apex court affirmed the view of the Kerala High Court that, no political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse the industry and commerce in the entire State or nation and is entitled to prevent the citizens not in sympathy with its viewpoints, from exercising their fundamental rights or from performing their duties for their own benefit or for the benefit of the State or the nation. Such a claim would be unreasonable and could not be accepted as a legitimate exercise of a fundamental right by a political party or those comprising it.”

18. In the instant case, the plaintiff has demonstrated before the Civil Court through Ex.A-4 to Ex.A-8, that the members of the appellant union in the name of gate meeting and slogan shouting are disturbing the industrial peace. The reasonable restriction is imposed on them by the Civil Court which has jurisdiction under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to try cases of these nature. There is no bar under the Industrial Dispute Act or any other statute for the Civil Court to entertain suits when the civil right of the larger public is affected. The fundamental right of any individual or group of individuals is subservient to the fundamental right of larger public. When there is conflict between two fundamental right or between two groups over exercise of their respective fundamental rights, the right which would advance the pub

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

lic interest should be enforced through the process of the court. 19. Permitting to gather and agitate, to shout slogan and to gherao within the security sensitive areas like the plaintiff premises where atomic plant is installed, may lead to breach of security. It may cause security threat to nation in general and to the installation in particular. A restriction of 100 meters away from the premises outer compound for all these activities is reasonable and a good balance between fundamental rights of life and liberty of the others, fundamental right of trade of the plaintiff Management and the fundamental right of association vest with the defendant Union. 20. Therefore, this Court concur and confirm the judgment and decree of the Courts below. It is also to be noted that the restrain order of injunction is only upto 100 meters from the main gate and within the prohibited area and not beyond that. The injunction decree cannot be construed as a ban on respondent union activities anywhere beyond the 100 meters. 21. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 M/s. Kashmir Wine & Provision Store Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
29-09-2020 Yashwanth @ Yashavant Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
29-09-2020 Ashok Vishwakarma Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
25-09-2020 Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, (Presently NLC India Limited), Rep. by its General Manager (Contracts) Corporate Office, Neyveli Versus M/s. TENOVA India Pvt. Ltd., Alwarpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2020 Mallappa & Another Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
25-09-2020 Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Versus Hindustan Construction Company Limited High Court of Delhi
24-09-2020 Raghavan & Another Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-09-2020 Yogesh Agarwal & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. herein by: The Investigation Officer Cyber Crime Police Station (CID), Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 Tousif Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
23-09-2020 Nagalakshmi (died) & Another Versus Sivaprakasam, Rep.by his Power Agent and his wife Senthamil Selvi High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Heer A. Rajani, Rep. by her Power of Attorney Amit M. Rajani Versus M.M. Syed Sikkander, Proprietor: M/s. Syed Bearing Centre, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 M. Umapathy & Another Versus The Joint Commissioner of Labour-I, (Registrar of Trade Union), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Rajegowda @ Guruswamy & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 Maharudragouda Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Ranebennur Town Police, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
22-09-2020 M/s. Boxster Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-09-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
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 Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd., Through Madhavdas K., Authorised Signatory Bec Nandinin Road Industrial Area, Chhattisgarh Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Senior Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-09-2020 Ramesh Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
21-09-2020 Shivanand Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary Dept. of Revenue, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Jantra Wanida & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Yellappa Versus The Management of NWKRTC, Rep. by its Divisional Controller, Gadag High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
21-09-2020 M. Rajalakshmi Versus Union of India Represented by the Secretary to Government Department of Revenue & Disaster Management Govt. of Union Territory of Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-09-2020 National Investigation Agency Chikoti Garden, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by A.G. Kaiser Versus Vinay Talekar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-09-2020 Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League, Represented by its General Secretary, K.A.M. Muhammed Abubacker, Chennai Versus M.G. Dawood Miakhan & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-09-2020 K. Murugan: Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2547/15 T. Velladurai, Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2548/15, Versus The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office, Alangulam & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-09-2020 B. Ramamoorthy & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Thankappan Pillai Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
18-09-2020 Vaibhav Prasad Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
18-09-2020 Mukul Mittal & Another Versus Union of India Through its Secretary & Another High Court of Delhi
18-09-2020 Aaraf Khan & Another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
18-09-2020 M/s. Standard Metalloys Private Limited, through its Authorised Signatory Sumit Tripathi Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-09-2020 Mahasamy Versus Minor Prakash, Rep. By his father & natural guardian Rajendran, Tiruppur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2020 Anandi Versus State, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2020 Vangamudi Kasimayan, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., rep PP. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
16-09-2020 R. Pradeep Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 Makdum @ Makdum Shariff Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by HCGP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 Firoz Iqbal Khan Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
14-09-2020 Zameer Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Sapna Chouhan & Another Versus State, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
14-09-2020 Kuruva Muliniti Lakshmana, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., Rep. PP. Hyd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
14-09-2020 Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, Rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin Versus The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-09-2020 Mukund Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2020 B.S. Yediyurappa Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2020 Shyam Investments, Rep. by its Partner Nina Reddy & Another Versus Masti Health & Beauty Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 Amarendra Bhagawati Versus The State of Assam Rep. By The Comm. & Secy., Deptt. of Excise, Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Ghy.-06 & Others High Court of Gauhati
11-09-2020 Syed Mujtaba Athar & Another Versus Union of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Others High Court of Delhi
11-09-2020 Mohd Nashruddin Khan & Others Versus Union Of India & Others High Court of Delhi
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-09-2020 Pravin Kumar Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
10-09-2020 Punitha Versus State by Turuvekere Police Turuvekere, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
10-09-2020 A. Sudharani Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 G. Chitra Poornima & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by Under Secretary Revenue Department & Others High Court of Karnataka
09-09-2020 R. Bharaneeswaran Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
09-09-2020 Alankit Assignments Limited Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
09-09-2020 Santosh @ Sada Mahadev Chand Rakodi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
08-09-2020 Jai Bharath College of Management & Engineering Technology, Rep. by Its Chairman, Ernakulam & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 Ex Jwo Kewal Krishan Vij Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Sidharth Vijay Shah Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-09-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Collector of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam Versus Janaki High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Sir Venkatramanaswamy Blue Metals, Rep by its Managing Partner, M. Sivanandam & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Karur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Y. Devadas Versus State of Telangana, Rep., by Special Chief Secretary, Education Dept., Government of Telangana & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 K. Ebnezer Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Inder Kumar Raina Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
04-09-2020 R. Poornima & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
04-09-2020 Saluvadi Sumalatha Versus The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (TREI-RB) rep., by its, Executive Officer (Convenor) & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Dr. Vani Viswanathan Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
04-09-2020 Alfadul Sobhi & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
04-09-2020 Natarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Govt. Dept. of Municipal Admin & Water Supply, City V, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 K. Ravi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Labour & Employment, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai. Another Versus S. Manikandan High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 Taba Tagar Versus The State of Arunachal Pradesh Rep. By Its Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh & Others High Court of Gauhati
03-09-2020 M/s. Khushee Construction through its Power of Attorney Holder, Patna Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-09-2020 Kothapalli Govinda Rajulu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
03-09-2020 F. Srilekha & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by S.P.P., Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 Meharaj @ Meharaj Begum Versus State by K.G. Halli P.S., Rep. by Government Pleader High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 M. Ravi & Others Versus State by Vishwanathapura P.S., Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 Yedla Babulu & Others Versus State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (J.A & L.A), T.S. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-09-2020 G.C. Kishor Kumar Versus Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 Sandeep Agarwal & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
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
02-09-2020 Philip Stephen Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust Established and Administering, Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research, Rep. by Chairman V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Vazhuvoor Ravi Versus The State of TamilNadu, Rep.by the Chief Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Arani Versus Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore Versus M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Mohd. Asgar Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
31-08-2020 M/s. AAF India Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Jagruti Mursenia Versus M/s. KBR Industries, Represented by its Partner High Court of Karnataka
31-08-2020 M/s. Kaveri Associates, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Rishabchand Bhansali Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(1), Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
31-08-2020 Naseem Chauhan Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
31-08-2020 Amanpreet Singh & Others Versus Union Territory of J&K High Court of Jammu and Kashmir