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



The Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. v/s M/s. S.L. Associates Pvt. Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01820KA1975SGC002883

Company & Directors' Information:- A P ASSOCIATES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72200AS1994PTC004194

Company & Directors' Information:- AT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109OR2008PTC009787

Company & Directors' Information:- DEVELOPMENT CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U13209WB1939PTC009750

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S HANDLOOM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101KA2003PTC031871

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND A ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC028051

Company & Directors' Information:- S L ASSOCIATES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1980PTC010620

Company & Directors' Information:- K A ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC128162

Company & Directors' Information:- E-ASSOCIATES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KA2006PTC039989

Company & Directors' Information:- A S HANDLOOM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2006PTC154138

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND A ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300DL1992PTC049422

    RFA No. 538 of 2018

    Decided On, 16 July 2018

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

    For the Appellant: Hem C. Vashisht, Rahul Malik, Advocates. For the Respondent: ----------



Judgment Text

Oral:

C.M. No.27511/2018 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No.27512/2018 (for condonation of delay)

2. For the reasons stated in the application delay of 140 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No. 538/2018 and C.M. Nos.27510/2018 (stay) & 27528/2018 (under Order XX Rule 6 CPC)

3. By this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the defendant in the suit, impugns the judgment of the Trial Court dated 25.9.2017 by which trial court has decreed the suit for mesne profits filed by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord against the appellant/defendant/tenant. It may be noted that the suit was for possession and mesne profits, and that the possession of the suit premises is already received by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord on 12.7.1996, in execution of the decree for possession obtained by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord.

4. The facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord let out the suit property bearing no. 2707, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to the appellant/defendant/tenant vide registered Lease Deed dated 7.11.1986. The suit premises comprised of 600 sq feet. The registered lease was admittedly w.e.f 1.1.1986 and which expired on 31.10.1989. Since the appellant failed to vacate the suit premises therefore a notice dated 7.10.1989 was sent asking the appellant/defendant/tenant to vacate by 31.10.1989, and since the appellant/defendant/tenant failed to do so, the subject suit was filed after serving a legal notice dated 11.1.1990. It is not disputed on behalf of the appellant/defendant/tenant that appellant/defendant/tenant was inducted as a tenant pursuant to the lease agreement dated 7.11.1986 at rent at Rs.15,000/- per month. It was argued that there was an oral understanding that the lease would be renewed after the expiry of three years, and therefore, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

5. As already stated above, this Court only has to decide the aspect of mesne profits as possession has already been received by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord on 12.7.1996. The period in question for which mesne profits had to be determined by the trial court was from 1.11.1989 till 12.7.1996.

6. Trial court has held that since in terms of the lease deed dated 7.11.1986(Ex.P15), the rent was to be increased by 10% every three years, and taking that factum as a guide, and since rents have otherwise increased, trial court hence granted 20% increase in the rent after every three years i.e first enhancement was granted of 20% w.e.f 1.11.1989 and the second increase on 1.11.1992. The relevant discussion in this regard by the trial court is contained in para 14 of the impugned judgment and this para 14 reads as under:-

'14. The plaintiff has claimed mesne profits/damages for the wrongful use and occupation of suit premises by the defendant.

Although in para 12 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the prevalent rate of rent is Rs.42/- per square feet per month i.e. Rs.25,200/- per month, however, though the plaintiff has examined PW2 to show that it was Rs.42/- sq. feet per month, but the same remains only a verbal contention and is not supported by any document.

In his testimony, PW1 has stated that the plaintiff had issued letter dated 07.10.1989 which is Ex.P1 and another letter dated 31.10.1989 terminating the lease deed and thereafter, it also sent a legal notice dated 11.01.1990 which is Ex.PW1/2, which all communication was regarding non extension of the period of lease after expiry of initial period of three years and the plaintiff has not demanded damages in case of occupation of suit premises by the defendant after expiry of initial period of three years.

The perusal of lease deed dated 07.11.1986 which is Ex.P15 shows that the suit premises was let out to the defendant at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. feet and area of suit premises is 600 sq. feet and hence, its monthly rent was Rs.1500/-.

Clause (3) of the said lease deed provides that this lease can be renewed at the option of both the parties for a period of three years only. Clause (4) provides that in case both the parties agree to renew the lease after initial period of three years, the rent shall be increased by 10%.

From the terms and conditions of lease deed Ex.P15, it is clear that after expiry of initial period of three years, if the period of lease was to be extended, it would have been with consent of both the parties and could not have been a unilateral act of one of the parties.

The plaintiff before expiry of initial period of three years had shown its intention not to renew the lease of suit premises after initial period of three years as evident from the letters Ex.P1, Ex.P6 and legal notice Ex.PW1/2. Hence, it is clear that the plaintiff was not interested to extend the period of lease of suit premises and it is also clear that stay of the defendant in the suit premises after agreed period of three years was not consented by the plaintiff.

Although, the lease deed provides for enhancement in rent by 10% in case the period of lease is extended, but it was only with the consent of both the parties and as already discussed, consent of the plaintiff is missing for extension of the lease period after expiry of agreed period and hence, in the given facts and circumstances and on the basis of the material as placed on the record, in considered opinion of the court, the plaintiff is entitled for damages/mesne profits after expiry of initial agreed period i.e. w.e.f. 01.11.1989.

It would be pertinent to mention even at the cost of repetition that the plaintiff has not led any direct or appropriate evidence with respect to rate for mesne profits/damages, however, in opinion of the court, if the stay of the defendant in suit premises was with consent of the plaintiff, then undoubtedly, the rent would have been enhanced by 10% on the previously paid rent. It may be mentioned that there can be a reason that the plaintiff was not interested to extend the period of lease and without taking consent of the plaintiff, the defendant continued remaining in the suit premises and hence, in the given facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to enhanced damages more than 10% in the previously paid rent. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is entitled for damages/mesne profits with enhancement of 20% on the previously paid rent which comes to Rs.30/- per sq. feet per month (20% enhancement of Rs.25/- per sq. feet). Hence, rate of damages/mesne profits comes to Rs.18,000/- per month for a period of three years w.e.f. 01.11.1989 to 31.10.1992.

Further, similarly the plaintiff is also entitled to enhancement of 20% on Rs.30/- per sq. feet per month for the period beyond three extended years of initial three years, i.e. w.e.f. 01.11.1992 till the date of handing over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff by the defendant, which comes to Rs.36/- per sq. feet (20% of Rs.30/- per sq. feet).

Thus, the plaintiff is held entitled for damages of Rs.30/- per sq. feet per month for 600 sq. feet w.e.f. 01.11.1989 to 31.10.1992 and at the rate of Rs.36/- per sq. feet per month for 600 sq. feet i.e. Rs.21,600/- per month w.e.f. 01.11.1992 to 30.04.1996 as in the month of May, 1996, PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the plaintiff had sold the suit premises.

The defendant shall also be entitled for adjustment of amount paid by it to the plaintiff during pendency of the case.

Accordingly, in view of totality of facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of material as placed on record, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.'

(underlining added)

7. In fact, in my opinion, the appellant/defendant/tenant is lucky in having been granted increase of 20% after every three years because it has been held by this Court in the judgment in the case of M.C. Aggarwal vs. M/s Shahra India & Ors. 2011 (183) DLT 105 that unless evidence to the contrary is led, courts are justified in drawing a presumption as to increase of rent, and for which ordinarily a court can grant increase between 10% to 15% every year on a cumulative basis. In the present case as against the appellant/defendant/tenant the increase was only of 20% after three years as stated above.

8(i) Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant argued that although the witness of the a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ppellant/defendant/tenant failed to appear for complete cross-examination, however the documents which were already exhibited in the affidavit by way of evidence of the witness of the appellant/defendant/tenant, should be looked into (witness was Sh. A.K. Gupta). (ii) The law is well settled, and I need not elaborate on the same, that evidence of a witness cannot be looked into unless the witness is brought by the person who wants to lead his evidence for his complete cross-examination. Once cross-examination is not completed, then therefore it has to be held that there is no evidence led on behalf of the appellant/defendant/tenant, and counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant is not correct in arguing that the documents exhibited in support of the witness can be looked into although the witness admittedly did not appear and his cross-examination was not completed. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-05-2020 Prabhu & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Housing & Urban Development, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
30-04-2020 Romesh Kumar Bajaj Versus Delhi Development Authority High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Delhi Development Authority & Others Versus Pushpa Lata & Others High Court of Delhi
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 P. Damodhar Versus The Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited rep by its Joint Managing Director, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-04-2020 Civilian Welfare & Development Trust (Regd.) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
04-04-2020 ABC Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
19-03-2020 C.P. Bhatia & Associates Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-03-2020 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
12-03-2020 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
11-03-2020 Jerome Velho Versus State of Goa, through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Choda Bhutia & Others Versus State of Sikkim, Through the Secretary, Human Resources & Development Department Government of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
06-03-2020 V. Gurusamy Versus The Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-03-2020 Om Prakash Swami Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-03-2020 M/s. Sree Neelalohita Associates Rep by its Managing Partner Versus M.A. Aleem & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-03-2020 Madhya Pradesh Housing & Infrastructure Development Board & Another Versus Vijay Bodana & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 In The Matter of: T. Johnson, of St. John Freight Systems Limited (Company under Insolvency) Majority Shareholder & Managing Director (Suspended) Versus St. John Freight Systems Limited Through R. Venkatakrishnan (Resolution Professional of St.John Freight Systems Limited) Partner of RVKS & Associates, Chartered Accountants, R.A. Puram, Chennai & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 Ravindra Manik Shinde & Another Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-03-2020 State of West Bengal Versus PAM Development Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-03-2020 Abdul Salam & Others Versus Delhi Development Authority & Another High Court of Delhi
02-03-2020 In The Matter of Anil Duggal Director Representing the suspended management of Duggal Associates Private Ltd., Delhi Versus Roofs & Ceilings Pvt. Ltd., Ghatkopar (W) Mumbai National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
02-03-2020 Birru Prathap Reddy & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
26-02-2020 The Administrator, City and Industrial Development Corporation [CIDCO] & Others Versus Padmakar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-02-2020 M.P. Road Development Corporation Versus Jagannath & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
26-02-2020 Burdwan Development Authority & Others Versus Arifa Khatun & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-02-2020 Anil Dattatraya Girme & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Ministry of Urban Development, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-02-2020 Rajendra K. Bhutta Versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Another Supreme Court of India
19-02-2020 Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., R/by the Deputy Manager (Legal), Ernakulam Branch Versus R. Ranjith Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
18-02-2020 Banajit Deka Versus The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
17-02-2020 Gram Panchayat Zinc Smelter, Panchayat Samiti Kurabad, District Udaipur Through Its Sarpanch Sarika Versus State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
14-02-2020 Manvendra Verma Versus Jaiprakash Associates Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-02-2020 K. Devadass Versus State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Secretary to Government Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department Secretariat Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-02-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus C.R. Sons Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
11-02-2020 G. Thamaraiselvi Versus Secretary To Government, Union of India, (Department of Higher Education), Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-02-2020 Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd., Kolkata Versus Smita Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-02-2020 Mahendra Singh Thakur Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
04-02-2020 Vythiri Primary Co-operative Agricultural & Rural-Development Bank Ltd., Kalpetta P.O, Wayanad Versus T.V. Devasia Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-02-2020 Goa Industrial Development Corporation, through its Managing Director, Faizi O. Hashmi Versus Commissioner of Income Tax & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
31-01-2020 K. Chelladurai Versus The Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Santha Medical Foundation (a Public Charitable Trust), Rep. by its Chairman & Trustee Dr. S. Saravanan & Another Versus The Commissioner of Rural Development and Local Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 Sanjay Singhal & Another Versus North Goa Planning & Development Authority, Through its Member Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-01-2020 A.P. Shareefa Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Tamil Nadu State Chess Associates Versus Bharat Singh Chauhan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 Krishna Pada Poddar Versus ABS Land Development and Construction Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Tapan Ghosh West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-01-2020 Desire Agro Resorts Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Pradip Kumar Halder West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
23-01-2020 Rawish Kumar Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Having it's office at Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
22-01-2020 Deepak Sharma Versus Jabalpur Development Authority & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
21-01-2020 The Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited & Another Versus H.L. Kaveri & Others Supreme Court of India
20-01-2020 Dr. Johny Cyriac Versus The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, New Delhi, Represented by Its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
20-01-2020 Meerut Development Authority Meerut Versus M/s Civil Engineering Construction Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-01-2020 Bhubaneswar Development Authority Versus Sri Brahmananda Hota Supreme Court of India
20-01-2020 Deepsinh G. Rathod Versus District Development Officer & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
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
16-01-2020 Pratima Choudhury & Another Versus Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-01-2020 Narayan Sarkar & Another Versus The General Manager, Tripura Scheduled Caste Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd., West Tripura & Another Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
13-01-2020 C.N. Rajaram Versus Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing & Development Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 T.D. Sadasivam Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Atul Kumar Singh Versus State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-01-2020 Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Bindu Bansal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 Mukesh Gupta & Others Versus Delhi Development Authority High Court of Delhi
03-01-2020 V. Sreenivasagam Versus Vannia Community Development Trust, Rep By Its Manging Trustee, N.V. Boopalan High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-01-2020 H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority Versus Som Dutt Vasudeva Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
31-12-2019 Rownakul Islam Barlaskar & Others Versus The Union of India, Represented by Secretariat to the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
20-12-2019 Vinod Sehgal Versus Delhi Development Authority, Through Its Assistant Director, Self Financing Scheme (Housing) Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
19-12-2019 B.R. Siddaramu Versus State of Karnataka, Department of Panchayath Raj & Rural Development, Represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
18-12-2019 Rama Shanu Naik Dessai Versus The Director, Goa State Urban Development Agency & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-12-2019 Hitesh Pradeep Matre Versus State of Maharashtra, Tribal Development Department, Through its Principal Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-12-2019 S.P. Surendranath Karthik Versus Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-12-2019 Ranasingh Versus The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 Delhi Development Authority Versus Rajesh Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-12-2019 Dinesh & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urban Development Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-12-2019 Ashok Kumar Khatri & Another Versus ABS Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-12-2019 The Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Director, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus M. Rajan, Regional Manager, Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd., Pathanamthitta & Others High Court of Kerala
04-12-2019 Indore Development Authority & Another Versus Ramlal (Deceased) Through LRS Maheshwari Yadav & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
04-12-2019 Sandeep Kwatra Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-12-2019 S.S. Chawla Versus Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
03-12-2019 G. Jaisankar Srinivasan Versus The Tamil Nadu Small Industries, Development Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 M/s. The India Sugars & Refineries Ltd., Rep. by its: Manager Finance, P.S. Krishnamurthy Versus The Commissioner for Cane Development & Director of Sugar, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
02-12-2019 Mahek Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Urban Development Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
02-12-2019 R. Ganesan & Others Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-11-2019 A. Mani & Another Versus The Registrar cum Director, Milk Production & Dairy Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2019 J. Jayachandran Versus The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats), Kattankolathur Block, Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 The Manager (Administration and Personnel) Footwear Design and Development Institute Ministry of Commerce and Industry Government of India, Uttar Pradesh & Another Versus Dr. Kaushik Ghosh High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 M/s. Chetan Associates Versus Abhilasha Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-11-2019 M/s. National Handloom Development Corporation Limited-(A Government of India Undertaking) Rep.by its Deputy Manager (Finance & Accounts) Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Peelamedu (North) Circle Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 Manikandan, Propritor-Ms Associates, Palakkad Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Home Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
20-11-2019 Raghuleela Builders Private Limited & Another Versus The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-11-2019 Champa Adak & Another Versus Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-11-2019 G. Chandra Shekhar Versus State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department High Court of Karnataka
14-11-2019 Jairaj A. Naik & Others Versus The Managing Director, Sewerage & Infrastructural Development Corporation of Goa Ltd. & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
13-11-2019 M. Sarojini Amma & Another Versus The Director, Social Child Development, Directorate of Social Welfare, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
13-11-2019 Shaji B. John, Kings International Ltd., Quilon & Others Versus The Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Cochin, Represented by Its Secretary, Dr. G. Santhanakrishnan High Court of Kerala


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box