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



The Managing Director, Represented by Chief Law Officer v/s Savita & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- LAW & LAW PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1948PTC017020

    M.F.A. Nos. 20914, 20915, 20916 of 2012, 101470 of 2014 (MV)

    Decided On, 10 January 2018

    At, High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

    For the Appellant: C.B. Patil, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R3 Kushal V. Bolmal, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated: 01.12.2011 passed in MVC. No.2905/2010 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III and Member, Addl. MACT, Belgaum, awarding the compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from the date of petition till its realization.This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated:02-12-2011 passed in MVC. NO.2906/2010 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III and member, MACT, Belgaum, awarding the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from the date of petition till its realization.

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated: 02-12-2011 passed in MVC. No.2907/2010 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III and Member, MACT, Belgaum, awarding the compensation of Rs.9,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from the date of petition till its realization.

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under section 17391) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated: 02-12-2011 passed in MVC. No.2905/2010 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III and Additional MACT, Belgaum, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation)

1. M.F.A.Nos.20914, 20915 and 20916 of 2012 have been preferred by the appellant/corporation and M.F.A.No.101470 of 2014 has been preferred by the appellant/claimants. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by Fast Track Court-III and Additional M.A.C.T. Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short), in M.V.C.Nos.2905, 2906 and 2907 of 2010 dated 02.12.2011.

2. Though the matters are listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeals are admitted and they are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that, on 15.12.2009 Shivanand Vibhuti, was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/V-2191 along with one Vinayaka and Gangappa as a pillion riders. When they came near Gobbargumpi village at about 3.00 p.m. at that time a K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA-17/F-658 came rashly and negligently and the driver of the bus lost the control and dashed to oncoming car and thereafter abruptly stopped the bus and the said motorcycle which was proceeding ahead came in contact with the said bus. As a result of the same the said Shivanandayya and the minor son died on the spot and his cousin brother Gangappa sustained grievous injuries. Immediately the said injured was shifted to hospital. It is further contended that the deceased Shivananda was working in Shivasai Fabricators, Auto Nagar, Belgaum as a skilled worker and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. For having lost the bread earner, wife and child and mother-in-law filed the claim petition and for having lost the son, the mother has filed the claim petition and for having suffered injuries the injured Gangappa filed the claim petition. 5. In pursuance of the notice respondent appeared and filed his objections by denying the contents of the petition it is further contended that the owner and insurer of the car involved in the accident are necessary parties to the said proceedings, the claim petition is bad for on-joinder of necessary parties. He further contended that the alleged accident has solely occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the car and due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and as such the respondent/corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the said petition.

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

Issues in M.V.C. No.2905/2010

1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 15/12/2009 deceased Shivanand Rachappa Vibhuti died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-17/F-658 as alleged in the petition?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?

3. What order or award?

Issues in M.V.C. No.2006/2010

1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 15/12/2009 when deceased Shivanand RAchappa Vibhuti along with the minor son Vinayak riding the motor cycle bearing No.KA-22/V-2191 near Gobbargumpi village on Navalgund-Shirkol road at 3.00 p.m. the on-going KSRTC bus bearing NO.KA-17/F-658 was driven in rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and public safely & dashed to on coming car and abruptly stopped thereby motorcycle came in contact with the bus as a result rider of the motor cycle Shivanand and his minor son Vinayak sustained fetal injuries as contended?

2. Whether the petitioner proves that the death of minor son Vinayak was because of consequences of impact and above accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the amount of compensation?

4. What order or award?

Issues in M.V.C. No.2907/2010

1.Whether the petitioner proves that on 15/12/2009 when the petitioner along with his cousin brother Shivanand were proceeding on Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-22/V-2191 towards Alagwadi on Navalgund Shirkol road near Gobargumpi village at 3.00 p.m. the on-going KSRTC bus hearing No.KA-17/F-658 was driven in rash and negligent manner endangering human life and public safety & dashed to on coming car and abruptly stopped the bus and as a result the motor cycle dashed to the bus and because of the said impact the pillion rider/petitioner sustained grievous injury all over the body as contended?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the amount of compensation?

3. What order or award?

In order to prove the case of petitioner, petitioner in M.V.C.No.2905 of 2010 was came to be examined as PW-1, petitioner in M.V.C.No.2907 of 2010 was came to be examined as PW-2 and got marked as Ex.P1 to P9. On behalf of respondents they have not led any evidence.

After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed. Assailing the same appellants are before this Court.

6. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/corporation are that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the income taken is at the rate of Rs.125/- per day is without there being any basis. He further contended that the alleged accident has occurred due to the fault of the driver of the car as well as the rider of the motorcycle, this aspect has not been considered and appreciated by the Tribunal and totally fixed the liability on the corporation which is not sustainable in law. He further contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional head is on the higher side. On these grounds he prayed for allowing the appeal by setting-aside the impugned judgment and award.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/claimants have contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is totally disproportionate and it is on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month and it has not considered the documents produced at Ex.P8, which clearly goes to show that some agricultural land was in the name of the deceased and he was earning more than what has been stated in the petition. He further contended that the compensation which has been awarded requires to be enhanced. On these grounds he prayed for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

8. The accident in question is not in dispute and so also the involvement of the offending vehicle insured with the corporation.

9. The first contention taken up by the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the driver of the car and the rider of the motorcycle have contributed to the alleged accident the said fact has not been considered and appreciated by the Tribunal in its right perspective. As could be seen from the judgment and award, in order to prove the fact that the drive of the K.S.R.T.C. bus was rash and negligent, petitioners have produced Ex.P1 certified copy of the F.I.R., Ex.P2 the certified copy of the complaint, Ex.P3 certified copy of the Panchanama and Ex.P6 certified copy of the charge sheet, all these documents clearly indicates the fact that the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA-17/F-658 has been prosecuted for the rash and negligent act. Though, the corporation has taken up the contention that the driver of the car and the rider of the motorcycle have contributed to the alleged accident, surprisingly no witnesses have been examined on behalf of the corporation to substantiate the said contention and the contention of the corporation has remained as a contention without there being any proof. In the absence any such material, the finding given by the Tribunal that the alleged accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent act of driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus is justifiable and there is no force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/corporation in this behalf.

10. The second contention taken up by the learned counsel for the appellant/corporation is that the compensation awarded under the various head is on the higher side.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the compensation awarded is on the lower side.12. As could be seen from the judgment and award and other records, it is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased Shivanand was working in Shivasai Fabricators, Auto Nagar, Belgaum and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. In this behalf, they got produced Ex.P7. In Ex.P7, it has been mentioned that the was getting a remuneration of Rs.6,000/- per month, but they have not examined the employer, who has issued Ex.P7 and as such the Tribunal has not believed the said fact and by taking the notional income at the rate of Rs.125/- per day and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying the multiplier 16 has awarded an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- towards the loss of dependency.

13. Though, under the normal circumstances, the said fact is justifiable. However, when the petitioners have failed to prove the income of the deceased then under such circumstances the Tribunal ought to have kept into view the year of the accident. The wages prevailing during that particular period. Admittedly, the accident is of year 2010 during that particular period, the notional income of Rs.5,500/- per month is the yardstick which used to be adopted even for settlement of cases before Lok-Adalat. If that were to be adopted and after deducting 1/3rd and after applying the multiplier of 16 then the appellants/claimant are entitled to an amount of Rs.7,04,064/- [5,500 minus 1/3rd = 3666.66 ( it is rounded of to Rs.3,667) 3,667 x 12 x 16] towards loss of dependency.

14. Apart from that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the conventional head. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, that the compensation awarded under the conventional head is also appears to be not on the higher side and the same requires to be confirmed.

15. In ali, the appellants/claimants in M.F.A.No.101470 of 2014 (M.V.C.No.2905 of 2010) are entitled a total compensation of Rs.8,04,064/-. Since the Tribunal ha awarded an amount of Rs.5,80,000/-, after deducing the same, the appellants/claimants are entitled to an additional compensation ofRs.2,24,064/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 16. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.2906 of 2010 therein, the mother of the deceased has filed the claim petition. As could be seen from the judgment and award and other records, the deceased was aged about 04 years at the time of the accident and keeping in view the said facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- globally and petitioner has not challenged the judgment and award. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court quoted supra, in the case of minor, if the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum is taken and multiplier of 15 is applied then under such circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper and it does not appears to be on the higher side and as such the same is confirmed.

17. Insofar as the judgment and award in M.V.C.No.2907 of 2010 is concerned therein the petitioners has produced t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

he wound certificate as per Ex.P9, therein he has sustained abrasion to right elbo and abrasion on left knee and keeping in view the injuries sustained by the injured a global compensation of Rs.9,000/- has been awarded. By taking into consideration the injuries and the compensation awarded appears to be just and proper. 18. Be that as it may, as per Section 173(2) of The Motor Vehicles Act, that 'No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees'. IN that light, the appeal will not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, M.F.A.No.20914, 20915 and 20916 of 2012 have been dismissed as devoid of merits and appeal in M.F.A.No.101470 of 2014 is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award, dated 02.12.2011, passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.2905 of 2010 is modified as indicated above. 20. The corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with up-to-date interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. While depositing the compensation amount the corporation shall deduct the interest for the delayed period. 21. The amount in deposit may be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal and send back the lower Court records forthwith. Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

29-07-2020 Saju Nambadan, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (LAW), Ernakulam & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
16-06-2020 Pia Singgh Versus National Law University Delhi High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 Rapolu Bhaskar Versus The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary Law Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
13-05-2020 A. Mohammed Hussain & Others Versus State by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Gayathri Chinna Nallasamy Versus The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University represented by its Registrar Perungudi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Mallika Versus Union of India Represented by its Secretary to Government Ministry of Law, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-02-2020 P. Sellaperumal & Others Versus Union of India Rep. by The Secretary to Government (Law), Government of Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 John K. Illikkadan Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Justice, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
04-02-2020 S. Santhanagopal & Others Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Law & Company Affairs Shastri Bhavan New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Ajay Ramesh Dinode Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary and Legal Remembrance, Law & Judicial Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-01-2020 Kaish Impex Private Limited (Through its Director – Deepak Kumar Goyal) Versus The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, Branch Secretariat & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-01-2020 The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Mysuru Rural Division, Rep. by its Chief Law Officer Versus Devadas High Court of Karnataka
18-12-2019 Refex Energy Ltd., Through its Managing Director, Madurai Versus Union of India, Through its Secretary (Legislative), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-12-2019 C. Raja Versus The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Taramani High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-12-2019 Ramesh Baburao Firode Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-12-2019 Vincent Raja Versus The State by The Inspector of Police, (Law and Order) K-2, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 Anil Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Law & Justice Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-11-2019 Himanshu & Others Versus University of Delhi, Faculty of Law through Registrar High Court of Delhi
15-11-2019 R. Ravikumar & Others Versus The Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Notary Cell), Represented by the Joint Secretary & Legal Adviser & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-11-2019 K. Vignesh Kumar Versus The Director of Legal Studies, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-10-2019 Karma Enterprises, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Managing Partner K.M. Sasidharan Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Deputy Commissioner (Law, Commercial Taxes), Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
14-10-2019 The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Represented by its Registrar, 'Poompoozhil', Chennai Versus The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Represented by its Assistant Registrar, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-10-2019 Prakash, Puducherry & Others Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government (Law), Government of Puducherry & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
03-10-2019 K. Mahalakshmi Versus The Registrar, Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-09-2019 K. Sreedhar Rao Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi Supreme Court of India
30-08-2019 M. Prasad Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Courts-A) Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-08-2019 In Re Missing of An Llm Student at Swami Shukdevanand Law College (SS Law College) From Shahjahanpur U.P. Supreme Court of India
28-08-2019 K. Sangeetha Versus The TamilNadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Represented by its Registrar, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-08-2019 State of Kerala, Represented by deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Law), State Goods & Service Tax Department, Ernakulam Versus Raphel T. Joseph High Court of Kerala
21-08-2019 Soundarajan @ Soundar & Another Versus The State, Represented by The Inspector of Police(Law & Order), Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2019 High Ground Enterprises Ltd. Versus Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Branch Secretariat & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-08-2019 John Llewellyn Stanley Versus New Zealand Law Society Court of Appeal of New Zealand
05-08-2019 Madhavi Dattatrai Thaly Versus The Secretary (Law), Secretariat, Alto-Porvorim & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
05-08-2019 Ashok Kumar Versus The Director General of Police (Law & Order) Kerala, Police Head Quarters, Vellayambalam, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
24-07-2019 Noorul Hithaya Beevi Versus The Chairman, 5 year B.A.LL.B.Degree Course Admission, 2018-2019, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Poompozhil, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-07-2019 Ravi Versus State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, (Law & Order) Police Station, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-07-2019 N. Vishnu Kumar & Another Versus The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar, Law University, Rep. by its Director of Legal Studies, Kilpauk, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-07-2019 Rapolu Mahalakshmi Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Administration (Law and Order) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-07-2019 The Caritas India, Rep. by Diocesan Director Fr.Anthony Raj Versus Union of India, Department of Law and Justice, Rep by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-06-2019 The National Law University, Jodhpur Versus Prashant Mehta & Others Supreme Court of India
20-06-2019 T. Rohin Versus KMCT Law College, Kuttipuram, Malappuram, Represented by Its Principal & Others High Court of Kerala
18-06-2019 Mara Venkata Lingam Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary, Law Department & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-06-2019 S. Jeyanthi Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-05-2019 M. Mohammed Mohsin Versus The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-04-2019 Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa Versus State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Law Department, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-04-2019 John Llewellyn Stanley Versus The New Zealand Law Society Court of Appeal of New Zealand
08-04-2019 Praveen Chand Shrivastava Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Law & Legislature, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
01-04-2019 Gunanka Churn Law Versus Bob Cards Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-03-2019 Ballarpur Industries Limited, through M.S. Pradeep, DGM Law, Gurgaon Versus Karapara Project Engineering, by its POA Hariharan Potti, Surat & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-03-2019 ABF Abdullah Faizee Versus The Inspector of Police, Law & Order, Cuddalore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-03-2019 P. Prathap Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Law Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-03-2019 Jangili Sagar & Others Versus State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Legal Affairs, Legislative Affairs & Justice, Law Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-03-2019 Dr. P. Shanthi & Others Versus Inspector of Police, Law & Order, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2019 B. Babu & Others Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Principal Secretary Law Department, Chennai Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2019 The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Represented by its Registrar & Another Versus Dr. D. Sankar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2019 The High Court Employees Association, Represented by its General Secretary Sanasam Shamungou Singh VersusThe State of Manipur through the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur & Others High Court of Manipur
13-02-2019 P. Sathish @ Sathish Kumar Versus State, Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Law & Order, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2019 Karanam Janaki Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Administration Department (Law and Order), Guntur District, A.P. & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-02-2019 Letter dated 6.1.2019 sent by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates' Association represented by its President Versus Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Central Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-01-2019 John D'Souza Versus Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Chief Law Officer High Court of Karnataka
21-01-2019 The Managing Director, Represented by its Chief Law Officer Versus M.S. Bhaskar High Court of Karnataka
28-12-2018 K. Kiran Kumar & Others Versus State of Telangana, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Administration (Law & Order) Department & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-12-2018 Dr. P.D, Divya, Assistant Professor (On Contract), Department of Veterinary Biochemistry, College of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Mannuthy & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Its Special Secretary To Government, Law (Legislation (I) Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
11-12-2018 The Law Society of The Northern Provinces Versus Pule Abram Morobadi Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
06-12-2018 Jayasree Versus The Union of India, Rep. by The Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice Department, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
04-12-2018 M.K. Hassan Versus The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-11-2018 C.A. Ali Kunj & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
19-11-2018 S. Anbazhagan Versus The Sub Inspector of Police, (Law and Order), Puducherry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-11-2018 R. Mani Senior Correspondent India Today Tamil Weekly Versus The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order ?H) Department Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-11-2018 State of Kerala, Representd by Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes Department, Ernakulam Versus M/s. Bharathi Airtel Limited, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
31-10-2018 K.N. Ramesh Babu Versus The Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
31-10-2018 K.N. Ramesh Babu Versus The Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-10-2018 The Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Through its Managing Director, The appellant is rept. by its Chief Law Officer Versus Raghavendra High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
12-10-2018 A Suo Moto Taken Writ Petition Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Law & Legislative Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan, Chhattisgarh. High Court of Chhattisgarh
11-10-2018 Malla Krishna Rao, Law Officer, JIPMER, Pondicherry Versus Dr. M.K. Bhan, President of JIPMER, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
08-10-2018 Varaaki Versus The State, Rep. by the Secretary Ministry of Law, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-09-2018 Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Another Versus Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice & Others Supreme Court of India
10-09-2018 The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Law Officer & Another Versus M/s. Rama Tubes Co., rep. By its Sri Maniklal Gulab Rai & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
06-09-2018 State of Kerala, Rep. by Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam Versus Joemon Rajan, Mangaly Rock Products, Angamaly High Court of Kerala
03-09-2018 Seranthaiyen Versus State represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law & Order, Palayamkottai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-08-2018 Krishna Kant Jha Versus State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Law Department, Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
30-08-2018 D.M. Education & Research Foundation, A Charitable & Educational Trust Having Its Registered Office at Naseera Nagar, Wayanad District Represented by Its Authorized Signatory & Law Oficer, Zalazi Kallangodan & Another Versus Union of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Represented by Its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
27-08-2018 K.P. Jahanavi Naik & Another Versus Karnataka State Law University, Through its Registrar, Hubballi High Court of Karnataka
14-08-2018 Komati Reddy Venkat Reddy & Another Versus V. Niranjan Rao, Secretary to Govt. Affairs, State of Telangana, Law and Legislative Dept. Hyderabad & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
14-08-2018 Komati Reddy Venkata Reddy & Another Versus v. Niranjan Rao, Secretary to Govt. Affairs, State of Telangana, Law and Legislature Dept. Hyderabad & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
03-08-2018 A.R. Hasina Banu Versus The Assistant Vice President (Law) & Authorised Officer, Mumbai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-08-2018 Metro Metal Industries, Represented by Its Partner, Laila Makkar Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Deputy Commissioner (Law), Department of Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
30-07-2018 Chandra Prakash Kashyap, Chhattisgarh Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Law And Legislative Affairs, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
30-07-2018 Madan & Others Versus The State rep by the Inspector of Police, (Law & Order), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-07-2018 Raj Pal Singh Versus State of U.P, Thr Prin Secy Law High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
19-07-2018 N.G. Annamalai Versus The Sub-Inspector of Police, Law & Order, Tiruvallur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-07-2018 V.J. Thomas, Ernakulam & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Special Secretary (Law),Law (Legilsation-D) Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
12-07-2018 Kochammini Thampuran & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Law & Public Administration, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
06-07-2018 State of Kerala, Rep. by Joint Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam Versus M/s. Margo Bio-Controls (P) Ltd., Kottayam High Court of Kerala
04-07-2018 Mahmooda Begum Versus The State of Telangana through General Administration (Spl. Law & Order) Department, reptd., by the Public Prosecutor & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
29-06-2018 Kunjiraman Nambiar, Panamaram Village & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Department of Law, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
28-06-2018 Snehal Chandrakant Shetye & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Law & Judiciary Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-06-2018 Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd., Rep. by Its Executive Corporate Affairs, Zachariah Kuriyan & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Special Secretary (Law), Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
15-06-2018 Trinity Western University & Another Versus Law Society of Upper Canada & Others Supreme Court of Canada
15-06-2018 P. Deepika Bai Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration (Special Law and Order) Department, Secretariat & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad