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



The Management of M/s. Birla Te v/s Chunni Lal


Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L01132WB1919PLC003334

Company & Directors' Information:- S. M. MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140AS2005PTC007642

Company & Directors' Information:- C & K MANAGEMENT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U91990TG2000PLC033293

Company & Directors' Information:- S M MANAGEMENT PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U74140WB1992PTC002848

Company & Directors' Information:- S M MANAGEMENT PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U74140WB1992PTC057260

Company & Directors' Information:- C. LAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2012PLC046499

Company & Directors' Information:- W P MANAGEMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100TG2016PTC112006

Company & Directors' Information:- S R MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH2000PTC129839

Company & Directors' Information:- V M G MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB2011PTC160061

Company & Directors' Information:- M B MANAGEMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1981PTC025914

Company & Directors' Information:- W P MANAGEMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201TG2016PTC112006

Company & Directors' Information:- I & J MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000DL2016PTC292375

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND S MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KL2005PTC018253

    W.P.(C). No. 2792 of 2007

    Decided On, 15 November 2019

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

    For the Petitioner: Dr. M.Y. Khan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. The present writ petition filed by the management assails the order dated 29.01.2007 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in OP No.100-2005/1987, whereunder the petitioner’s application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ID Act’) seeking approval of its order dismissing the respondent/workman from service, came to be rejected. The petitioner has also assailed the award dated 29.01.2007 passed by the same Tribunal in ID No.72/2005 whereunder the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent in service with 50% backwages, after holding that he had been illegally terminated.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/workman joined the services of the petitioner/Mill in October, 1970 and became a member of the Textile Mazdoor Congress (Regd.). On 12.01.1994 the workman was issued a charge sheet alleging that he along with 30 other workmen had, on 10.01.1984 at about 11.30 am, forcibly entered the administrative block and misbehaved with one Mr. Hemant Kumar, the Chief Executive officer of the Mill, because a transfer order was issued in their names upon the closure of the petitioner’s weaving section. It was also alleged that the errant workmen had continued with their gherao of Mr. Hemant Kumar till 6.30 pm and had also stopped the labour officer from entering the premises. When the respondent/workman denied his presence at the site on the date of incident, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Even though the inquiry could not be completed due to successive change in the Inquiry Officers, the petitioner dismissed the respondent from service, as also the other 30 workmen accused of being involved in the incident, vide its order dated 28.03.1985. In view of the pending industrial dispute between these parties, the petitioner filed an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act before the Tribunal seeking approval of its dismissal order dated 28.03.1985.

3. In his reply to the approval application, the respondent/workman specifically denied the petitioner’s allegations and pointed out that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the genuine and legitimate demands being raised by him as an active union member, had fabricated the incident as it was looking for a reason to oust him and the other union members from service. He further claimed that the petitioner had not even remitted one month’s salary to him, which was a necessary precondition for filing an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Did the respondent indulge in violence activities and gheraoed Shri Hemant Kumar, Chief Executive?

2. Is the applicant entitled to approval of dismissal of the respondent?

5. In support of its claim that the respondent had indulged in violent activity by gheraoing its Chief Executive Officer, the petitioner examined two witnesses, viz., Sh. Mahavir Prasad, the Industrial Relations Officer and Sh.Hemant Kumar, and also placed reliance on the police complaint dated 10.01.1984. The respondent, on the other hand, examined himself as his sole witness. Upon consideration of the evidence led before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, prima facie, there was no proof of the respondent’s participation in the alleged incident dated 10.01.1984. It was also found that there was nothing to show that the payment of one month’s wages had been remitted to the respondent in accordance with Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. The Tribunal, therefore, rejected the petitioner’s approval application in the impugned order dated 29.01.2007 by holding as under:-

“32. As per the present approval application, AW1- Mahavir Prasad is an eye witness to the incident dated 10.01.84. If the complaint Ex.AW1/1 is looked into, then, the presence of Mahavir Prasad does not find mention on the date of the alleged incident in the said complaint. The statement of AW1-Mahavir Prasad in his affidavit Ex.AW1/A that he has seen the incident by his naked eyes is not believable as his such version is coming before this Court after a gap of about 18 years. There is no document to corroborate his version. Moreover, the management has also failed to bring on record the attendance record of the workman as on the date of the alleged incident dated 10.01.84.

33. If the complaint Ex.AW1/A is looked into, the SHO Sh. Kalla Roshanara Police Station was already present in his room who let Mr. Hemant Kumar to go for natural call at about 5.00 PM, then, the question is, that, if the police was already there, how he was confined in the room thereafter till 6.30.PM. If the police was there why the investigation of the police is not relied upon by the management. The answer is obvious that the management does not want to bring true facts before this Court.

34. There is no explanation on the record why the management has not examined the security personnels who were deputed on the said date of incident who tried their best to prevent the workman along with the co-workmen who entered into the administrative block without permission. The name of Sh. R.L. Goyal and Sh. Mahavir Prasad who are stated to be eye witnesses to the incident in question, as per the approval application are not mentioned in the complaint Ex.AW1/1 which ipso-facto shows that they were not present at the time of the alleged incident and they were got prepared by the management thereafter as there is no document, proved on record by the management to show that Sh. R.L. Goyal and Mahavir Prasad were present on the date of the alleged incident in the office.

35. There is also no explanation on the record that why the police or the management has not taken photographs of the broken doors and the broken pots on the date of the alleged incident, as narrated in the approval application itself.

36. The date of the incident was 10.01.84 and without completing the enquiry into the charges against the workman, the management filed the present approval application on 28.03.1985 without supporting it with any affidavit of the management’s witnesses. The management has filed the affidavits of AW1-Mahavir Prasad and AW2-Hemant Kumar after a gap of more than 18 years with improved versions, as discussed above which clearly shows that the management has not approached to this Court with clean hands to show their bonafide that in fact such incident took place and the workman did participate in the alleged incident. Since, the relations between the management and the workman were not in good terms at the relevant time, it can be said that the management was trying to get rid off the workers, employed in the Weaving and Allied Department and created the present scene in question. Thus, I hold that there is no prima facie evidence on record that the workman infact did participate in the alleged incident dated 10.01.84 and therefore, this issue is decided against the management and in favour of the workman.

ISSUE NO.2

37. The management in the approval application in para-16 has stated that the management has sent the dismissal letter by registered AD post and simultaneously one month’s pay in lieu of notice was also sent by money order. In reply to the approval application, the workman has denied of having received the same. The management has not examined any official from postal authorities that infact the said dismissal letter and the said amount were delivered to the workman concerned. Therefore, the management has failed to prove the compliance of Section 33 (2) (b), in view of the judgment in 2002 LAB IC 605 Anil Kumar Joshi Vs. Air India Limited.

38. Keeping in view the discussions, made above on issue no.1, the management/applicant failed to prove on record the prima facie evidence to show that the workman did participate in the alleged incident dated 10.01.84 and the management further failed to prove on record that the management in fact delivered the dismissal letter along with one month’s wages by money order to the workman concerned. Therefore, I accordingly, reject the approval application, moved on behalf of the management. The workman is deemed to be in the employment of the management. It is ordered, accordingly.

6. Even while the petitioner’s approval application was pending adjudication before the Tribunal, the respondent, after sending a demand notice to the petitioner, also raised an industrial dispute challenging his termination. The said industrial dispute came to be allowed by the Tribunal vide its award dated 29.01.2007 wherein, upon an appreciation of evidence, it came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove any misconduct on the part of the respondent. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the respondent’s termination and directed the petitioner to reinstate him with continuity of service and 50% back wages.

7. Assailing the order rejecting its approval application as also the award directing the respondent’s reinstatement, the present writ petition has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. M.Y. Khan submits that once the respondent had raised an industrial dispute, the order passed in the petitioner’s approval application loses all sanctity and is no longer relevant. He submits that irrespective of the petitioner’s approval application being dismissed by the Tribunal, the merits of the respondent’s defence in the industrial dispute ought to be considered independently by this Court. He submits that the charges framed against the respondent were of a serious and grave nature as he was guilty of illegally confining and abusing his superior officer. He was, therefore, guilty of misconduct which warranted his dismissal from service. In support of the aforesaid contention, Dr. Khan places reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in L.K. Verma Vs. HMT Ltd. & Anr., 2006 Lab. I.C.964, M/s Ralli Chemicals Ltd. Fertilizar Factory Vs Labour Court 1971 (22) F.L.R. 74 and Jay Engineering works vs. State, AIR 1968 Calcutta 407. He further submits that the findings of the Tribunal in the impugned order as well as the impugned Award are not based on a proper appreciation of evidence and are, therefore, not sustainable. Dr. Khan finally submits that even otherwise, since the Mill closed on 30.11.1996 and the respondent having attained the age of superannuation in the year 2009, expired on 27.04.2015, the relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages granted to the respondent was not warranted. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the settled legal position, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Verma (2002) 2 SCC 244, once the petitioner’s approval application was dismissed by the Tribunal, the respondent was deemed to be in continuous service. Even if he did not raise an industrial dispute challenging his termination, the same cannot alter the fact that his termination was non-est, being in violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. He further submits that the Tribunal, after a detailed appreciation of the evidence led before it, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not produced any material to show that the respondent had, in fact, indulged in any misconduct. He further submits that the petitioner’s plea that the Mill stands closed is belied by its own averments in the present petition to the effect that the petitioner Mill, which was earlier operating in Delhi, had been re-located to Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh and has, thereafter, merged with M/s Chambel Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. He, thus, contends that the petitioner is continuing to operate at Baddi and is also, in any event, maintaining an office at Delhi, on which address it had been served with notices by this Court. He submits that the Tribunal has arrived at a categorical finding not only while deciding the approval application but also while deciding the industrial dispute raised by the respondent/workman that no case of misconduct was made out against the workman. He submits that these findings are based on a due appreciation of evidence warranting no interference by this Court and, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

10. I have considered the submissions of the parties and with their assistance perused the record.

11. As noted above, Dr. Khan has raised two primary contentions, the first being that once an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent, he cannot rely on the Tribunal’s order rejecting the management’s approval application to substantiate his claim in the industrial dispute. In my view, merely because the respondent also chose to raise an industrial dispute cannot imply that the order rejecting the approval application loses its sanctity. On the contrary, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Ltd. (supra) categorically holding that once the management’s approval application is rejected, a necessary consequence thereof is that the termination/dismissal will not have any effect, it is evident that once the petitioner’s approval application was rejected, the order of termination passed against the workman would be rendered void. In fact, as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Badshah Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board passed [LPA No.604 of 2014], in such a situation where the management’s approval application is rejected, it would not even be necessary for the workman to raise a formal claim in this regard. Thus, I find no merit in the petitioner’s first contention.

12. At this stage, it may be noted that as a consequence of the rejection of the approval application, the respondent could have claimed reinstatement with full backwages without raising any industrial dispute. Even when the respondent proceeded to raise a specific industrial dispute wherein he has been granted reinstatement with only 50% backwages, this aspect of quantum of backwages payable to the respondent could have engaged this Court but in view of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent is satisfied with the award of 50% backwages made in his favour, this aspect need not be determined by this court.

13. I do not find any merit even in the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal’s finding that no misconduct had been proved is perverse and liable to be interfered with by this Court. Even though this Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence unless some perversity is pointed out, yet I have carefully examined the evidence and find absolutely no reason to differ with the conclusion of the Tribunal which is based on a correct appreciation of evidence. None of the Management witnesses were able to conclusively establish the alleged misconduct on the part of the respondent and, therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that no misconduct was made out. It is not the case of the petitioner that any admissible or material evidence was ignored by the Tribunal or that any inadmissible evidence had been considered by the Tribunal. On the other hand, I find that the learned Tribunal has meticulously examined the evidence led on record and has provided cogent reasons for disbelieving each of the management witnesses. Therefore, while exercising my writ jurisdiction I see no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, both in its impugned order and award dated 29.01.2007. Reference may be made to the decision in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation 2010 (3) SCC 192 wherein the Supreme Court has, by referring to its earlier decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675, reiterated the scope of interference by a writ Court while dealing with an award passed by a Labour Court by observing as under:-

“13. In Surya Dev Rai case [(2003) 6 SCC 675] , a two-Judge Bench, after threadbare analysis of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and considering large number of judicial precedents, recorded the following conclusions: (SCC pp. 694-96, para 38)

“(1) Amendment by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 1-7-2002 in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by CPC Amendment Act 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

(3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e. when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction—by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction—by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.

(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

(6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent.

(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred thereagainst and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.

(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.

(9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English courts has almost obliterated the distinction between th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate court as the court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 14. I also do not find any merit in the petitioner’s contention that the respondent could not be granted reinstatement as the Mill was closed on 30.11.1996, pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court. Once it is the petitioner’s own case that its factory was relocated to Baddi, it is evident that all similarly placed workmen continued to be employed in Baddi unless they had chosen to voluntarily leave the services of the respondent. Therefore, there is no reason to deprive the respondent, now represented through his legal heirs, of the consequential benefits arising out of the impugned order and award passed in his favour. 15. Before I conclude I may also refer to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that these decisions pertain to cases where the workman’s misconduct regarding misbehaviour/assault of senior officers stood conclusively proved by way of cogent evidence and, therefore, the only question before the Court in those matters was regarding the nature of penalty imposed on the workman. In the present case, in view of the Tribunal’s conclusion that no case of misconduct was made out against the workman, with which I see no reason to differ, the decisions relied upon by the petitioner would be wholly inapplicable. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no infirmity either in the impugned order dated 29.01.2007 rejecting the petitioner’s approval application or in the impugned Award dated 29.01.2007 directing the respondent’s reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. 17. The writ petition being meritless, is dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

29-09-2020 Laddu Lal Mahto Versus Managing Director, Tata Motors Limited, Bihar & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-09-2020 Charu Sharma & Others Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Maharshtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
21-09-2020 Yellappa Versus The Management of NWKRTC, Rep. by its Divisional Controller, Gadag High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
18-09-2020 Priyamvada Devi Birla (Dec.) & Others Versus Ajay Kumar Newar & Others 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
09-09-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others Versus Goverdhan Lal Soni & Another Supreme Court of India
08-09-2020 Murari Lal Versus State of U.P & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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
28-08-2020 Pinnaccle Institute Engg. & Management Versus Biswajit Santra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2020 Chhotey Lal Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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
18-08-2020 Lal Chand Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
17-08-2020 Hariom Project Private Limited Versus Military Engineer Services, Director Of Contract Management And Ors. High Court of Delhi
11-08-2020 Shankar Lal Yadav & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
06-08-2020 Ram Lal Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
05-08-2020 Dav Institute of Management, Chandigarh Versus Punjab University, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
04-08-2020 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Now Known As Aditiya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.), Maharashtra & Another Versus Narendra Pundlik Ramteke National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Prasad Naik & Another Versus The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, through its Member Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
17-07-2020 Pyare Lal Versus State of Haryana Supreme Court of India
13-07-2020 Zee Learn Ltd. Versus UTI Asset Management Co. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-07-2020 The Management of M/s. Therelek Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, S. Venkatramana Bhat Versus K. Dharman High Court of Karnataka
30-06-2020 Sindhu. S. Lal Versus Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor & Others High Court of Kerala
29-06-2020 Mohan Lal Jain Versus Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Another High Court of Delhi
26-06-2020 Amrut Lal @ Amrit Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-06-2020 Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Versus Star Agriwarehousing And Collateral Management Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
23-06-2020 Munna Lal Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical & Health Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-06-2020 Nancy Roy Versus Delhi Disaster Management Authority & Others High Court of Delhi
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Jivan Lal Verma Versus Kishan Agrotek National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Moti Lal @ Moti Lal Patwa Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance through the Director, Enforcement Directorate, Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-06-2020 Latelraj Suryawanshi (Latelram Suryawanshi wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment) Versus Hori Lal Tamboli & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
01-06-2020 Aditya Birla Money Limited, Rep. By its Head – Legal & Compliance, L.R. Murali Krishnan Versus The National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Investors Services Cell, Kotturpuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-05-2020 Aravapalli Krishna Murthy Versus Syed Lal Saheb Died & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 Diwari Lal & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-05-2020 The Federal Agency for State Property Management of the Russian Federation (ROSIMUSHCESTVO) Versus Saraf Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
11-05-2020 Shiv Lal (Since Deceased) Versus Mohan Lal High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-05-2020 Mohan Lal Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
08-05-2020 The Management of M/s. Recipharm Pharma Services Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Assistant General Manager Versus G. Vasanthkumr & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-05-2020 Priyambada Devi Birla & Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-04-2020 Jagdish Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
21-04-2020 State Bank of India, A Government of India Undertaking Rep by its DGM and Branch Head Stressed Asset Management Branch, Hyderabad Versus The Union of India, Ministry of Finance Rep by its Secretary Services Tax Wing, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-04-2020 A. Mallikarjuna Versus Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, Disaster Management Division, Represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
20-04-2020 Babu Lal Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
30-03-2020 Bala Krishna Mandapati Versus The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Chief Secretary, Revenue (Disaster Management-II), Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-03-2020 Babu Lal & Others Versus Para Devi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal Supreme Court of India
12-03-2020 The Adirampattinam Education Trust, Adirampattinam Represented by its Secretary, M.S. Tajudeen & Another Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariate, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-03-2020 Ram Dulari & Another Versus Ram Lal & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
10-03-2020 M/s. Professional Management Consultants (P) Ltd., Chennai Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation, Rep by its Joint Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The Principal Officer, M/s. RR Donnelley India Outsource Private Limited, (Formerly known as Astron Document Management Private Limited), Rep. by its Jyothi Prosad Bose, Director Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 5 (2) High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Remedial Resolutions Advisors Private Limited (Formerly known as Stressed Asset Management Advisors and Settlement Company Pvt. Ltd.) & Others Versus Capri UK Investments Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Gunjan Kumar Versus Management of Circle Head Punjab National Bank, Darbhanga & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-03-2020 T.D. Watson Versus The Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Disaster Management and Mitigation Department, Ezhilagam & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
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
29-02-2020 Lal Chand Versus State of H.P. High Court of Himachal Pradesh
28-02-2020 M/s. Padmavathi Hospitality & Facilities Management Services, Rep. by its Partner & Authorized Representative Pradeep Kanumuri & Another V/S The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-02-2020 Aman Khattar Versus Jawahar Lal High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 M/s. Kiran Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Manohar Lal Ahuja, Uttar Pradesh Versus Yashpal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-02-2020 State Bank of India Stressed Assets Management Branch- II, Kolkata Versus Maithan Alloys Limited, Kolkatta & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
25-02-2020 Bank of India, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Mumbai Versus Shrenuj & Company Limited, Mumbai National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
25-02-2020 Proprietor, Gandhi Institute of Management & TechnologyProprietor Sarbani Das Versus Alok Kumar Jha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-02-2020 The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-1), Bye-Pass Salai, Madurai & Another Versus S. Gunasekaran & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-02-2020 S. Suresh Versus The Management Exide Industries Ltd., Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-02-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra Versus M/s. Dangi Financial & Management Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-02-2020 M/s. Behari Lal & sons V/S The State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-02-2020 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Rep.by its Authorized Representative M.D. Maheshwaran Versus The Special Secretary, Department of Revenue & Disaster Management, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Pushparani Versus The Management of Chattan Estate, Kolakambai, The Nilgiris District & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions (P) Ltd. Dwaraka, New Delhi, Registered Office Bhatinda, Punjab, Represented by Its Director, Vikas Mehta Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Dr. Hira Lal Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 The Management, ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Mumbai & Others Versus The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Manager, Delhi Versus Chaman Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 Asim Kumar Pal & Others Versus Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-02-2020 Jhanak Lal V/S State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Chattisgarh
13-02-2020 Vikas Panchayat, Gram Boheda Through Sarpanch, Rajasthan Versus Badri Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Ashok Alias Gore Lal Veruss State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Kanhaiya Lal Versus Lala Ram & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
10-02-2020 Achal Bisht Versus Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management & Catering Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
07-02-2020 M/s. Veejay Facility Management Private Limited & Another Versus The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, A & S Department, “Star House” & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
07-02-2020 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Meena Devi Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
06-02-2020 P. Babu Versus The Union of ndia Rep. by the Secretary to Government Department of Revenue and Disaster Management Government of Puducherry, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-02-2020 Heera Lal Versus State High Court of Rajasthan
05-02-2020 Chhotey Lal @ Chottu Versus State High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 Power Max (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jindal Urban Waste Management (Guntur) Ltd & Another High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 The Management of M/s. Bhakthavatsalam Vidhyashram, Chennai V/S M. Rajeswari High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 School Management, St. Xavier Public School Korba Versus Raghuvanshi Chandra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-01-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
30-01-2020 Pramod Poddar Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-01-2020 Chedde Mahesh Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Another Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
29-01-2020 Karnveer Singh Versus Panji Lal Damor High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-01-2020 Mohit Lal Ghosh Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-01-2020 M/s. Urban Umbrella Development And Management Company Through Its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Punjab V/S Pawan Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-01-2020 Chuni Lal Versus Munshi Ram & Another Supreme Court of India
24-01-2020 Lal Mohammed Versus State (Nct of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
23-01-2020 Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Others Versus Sunita Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India