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



The President, SLM.HSG 75, Dharapuram Taluk Co-operative Housing Society, Tiruppur v/s P. Balasubramanian & Another


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

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- J HOUSING PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1980PTC010338

Company & Directors' Information:- D. H. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102MH2012PTC237322

Company & Directors' Information:- K-HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TN2009PTC070655

    Review Application No. 77 of 2018 & Cont.P. No. 3131 of 2016

    Decided On, 22 June 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH

    For the Petitioner: S. Seenivasagam, S. Kadarkarai, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, R. Krishanamoorthy, R2, L.P. Shanmugasundaram, Spl GP (Co-op).



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC read with Section 114 of CPC seeking to review the order dated 03.10.2016 in W.P.No.37792 of 2015 passed by this Court.)

1. This Review Application has been filed seeking to review the order dated 03.10.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.No.37792 of 2015.

2. The 1st respondent herein had filed the writ petition in W.P.No.37792 of 2015 seeking for a mandamus directing the review applicant and the 2nd respondent to pay the terminal benefits of the 1st respondent herein/writ petitioner amounting to Rs.15,35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30.09.2012 till the date of payment.

3. This Court, after hearing both sides, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.D.Tewari (dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and others reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 and also the decision in S.K.Dua Vs. State of haryana and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44, has directed the review applicant and the 2nd respondent herein to pay the terminal benefits with 9% interest in ten installments. The relevant portions in the said order read as follows-

"8. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 894 in D.D.Tewari (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, wherein it has been held that denial of interest from date of entitlement till date of payment has resulted in miscarriage of justice and paragraph Nos.6 to 8 of the order reads as under:-

"6. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006 and the order of the learned Single Judge after adverting to the relevant facts and the legal position has given a direction to the respondent employer to pay the erroneously whithheld pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal representatives of the deceased employee without awarding interest for which the appellant is legally entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of justice in denying the interest to be paid or payable by the employer from the date of the entitlement of the deceased employee till the date of payment as per the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to supra. We have to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum both on the amount of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be paid by the respondent.

7. It is needless to mention that the respondents have erroneously withheld payment of gratuity amount for which the appellants herein are entitled in law for payment of penal amount on the delayed payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, We do not propose to do that in the case in hand.

8. For the reasons stated above, We award interest at the rate of 9% on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. If this amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the amount falls due to the deceased employee. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed."

9. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 44 in S.K.Dua Vs. State of Haryana and another, wherein paragraph 14 of the orders reads as under:

"14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the filed, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in the absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that retiral benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."

10. Learned counsel for the second respondent has filed the counter stating that the second respondent has admitted the claim of the petitioner. But due to cumulative loss to the tune of Rs.217.36 lakhs for the past 10 years, the Society is unable to settle the terminal benefits. It has further stated that the petitioner made a representation before the second respondent dated 27.10.2015 and the same was disposed by the second respondent on 06.11.2015 and hence the question of Mandamus to dispose of the representation dated 27.10.2015 does not arise. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he may file revision under Section 153 of the Act before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) Chennai.

11. In my considered opinion, since the respondents admitted their liability to pay the terminal benefits of Rs.15,35,000/- to the petitioner, there is no need for this Court to direct the petitioner to file a revision before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing). Hence, by keeping the dictum laid down in the above judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court direct the respondents to pay the terminal benefits at 9% interest, since the petitioner is entitled for interest for belated payment. Since it is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Society is not in a position to pay the entire terminal benefits as single payment due to its cumulative loss, the respondents are permitted to pay the terminal benefits with 9% interest in ten installments commencing from 01.11.2016."

Now, the present review application has been filed seeking to review the above said order passed by this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the Review Applicant submitted that this Court has committed a gross omission in applying the decision of the Larger Bench of five Judges of this Court in Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies [2006 (4) CTC 869], wherein it has been held that no writ will lie against a co-operative institution as it is neither a 'State' nor 'Instrumentality of State Government' nor discharing a 'public duty' and the writ petition ought to have been rejected ex-facie. Further, the dispute between the 1st respondent/writ petitioner and the review applicant herein is a 'master and servant relationship' and if there were any dispute with regard to the payment of terminal benefits as sought for by the 1st respondent, it would be an 'industrial dispute' coming well under the ambit of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. If it were a claim arising out of the terms of employment, the same has to be preferred under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner ought to have either approached the Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act or got resolved the issue under the Common law if he were not governed by the Industrial Disputes Act. At any rate, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the Review Applicant would submit that these aspects were not considered by this Court while passing the order dated 03.10.2016 in W.P.No.37792 of 2015. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Review Application has also relied upon the decision reported in (2005 (3) LLN 1063) [Binny Ltd Vs. Sadasivam), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows-

"Applying these principles, it can very well be said that a writ of mandamus can be issued against a private body which is not a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and such a body is amenable to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can exercise judicial review of the action challenged by a party. But there must be a public law element and it cannot be exercised to enforce purely private contracts entered into between the parties. The remedy available to the respondents is to seek redressal of their grievance in civil law or under the labour law enactments especially in view of the disputed questions involved as regard to status of employees and other matters."

Thus, by relying upon the above decision, the learned counsel for the Review Applicant sought for reviewing the order passed by this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the 1st respondent also and perused the perused the materials available on record.

6. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the review applicant that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, but without considering this aspect, this Court has given a direction as stated supra. But, this Court is of the opinion that this Court has passed the order based on the admission made by the review applicant and the 2nd respondent herein with regard to their liability to pay the terminal benefits to the writ petitioner. Absolutely, I do not find any valid ground to review the said order passed this Court.

7. Further, it is well settled legal position that a Review Application cannot be entertained to re-argue the grounds which were already agitated. A review is permissible only if it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or certain vital points which were agitated have not been considered in the order which is sought to be reviewed. In the present case, the review Applicant has not satisfied the above said two aspects. In this context, useful reference can be made to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others) reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court, after examining various judgments has laid down the circumstances, as to when the Court can review its own judgments. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under:

"12. This Court has repeatedly held in various Judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can be entertained only there is an error apparent on the face of record. A mere repetition through different counsel, of old and overrulled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient......."

... ... ...

"19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XL VII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the Judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned Judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction."

8. One another aspect I have noticed is that the present review application has been filed by a counsel, other than the one who has appeared in the writ petition, on behalf of the review applicant herein. A review application can be entertained only if it is filed by the counsel who appeared in the case or who argued the case, which is sought to be reviewed. In this context, reference can be made to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (M. Poornachandran and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others) reported in 1997 (2) Law Weekly 326 (I) wherein it was held as follows:-

The record of the appeal indicates that Shri. Sudarsh Menon was the advocate-on-Record when the appeal was heard and decided on merits. The Review petition has been filed by Shri. Prabir Chowdhary, who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of argument. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the Review Petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would not in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That apart, he has not obtained 'No objection Certificate' from the Advocate-on-Record in the appeal, inspite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the No Objection Certificate would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the 'No Objection Certificate' from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the Review Petition. Even otherwise, the Review Petition has no merits. It is an attempt to re-argue the matter.

On those grounds, we dismiss the Review Petition.

9. In yet another decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another vs. N. Raju Reddiar and another) reported in CDJ 1996 SC 761, it was held as follows:-

1. It is a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming and not worth of or conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariarputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on 24-04-1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar has now been engaged to file the present application styled as 'application for clarification' on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petitin is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the Advocate-on-record who neither appeared nor was a party in the main

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

case. It is salutary to note that the court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review Petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine, that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the Advocate-on-record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of profession....... 2. Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the Advocate-on-record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with a heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice. 3. The application is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- as it is an abuse of the process of court in derogation of healthy practice. The amount should be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee within four months from today. If the amount is not paid it should be recovered treating this decision as decree of the Court by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 10. In the light of the above decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, I am of the view that the grounds raised by the Review Applicant in this Review Application cannot be entertained and the review application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

24-06-2020 M.P. Satheesan, Senior Manager (Retired), Kannur District Co-Operative Bank, Kannur Versus The Kannur District Co-Operative Bank, Represented by General Manager, Kannur & Others High Court of Kerala
12-06-2020 Awadhesh Kumar Versus Multi State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
02-06-2020 A. Janakiraman Versus The Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, rep. by its Chief Executive, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Padmavani Educational & Charitable Trust, Rep.by its Joint Managing Trustee, Salem Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 K. Shanthi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-05-2020 Dill Versus Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
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
01-05-2020 Sysco India Private Limited Versus Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Gujarat State High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
29-04-2020 R (on the application of Palestine Solidarity Campaign Ltd. & Another) Versus Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government United Kingdom Supreme Court
27-04-2020 Udyavara R. Acharya & Another Versus Jugal Kishor Jagannath Sharda Zenith Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-04-2020 H.M. Prakash Versus The State of Co-operative Election Authority, Represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-04-2020 India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. Versus Securities Exchange Board of India & Another High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 Smitha & Others Versus Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 P.B. Biju Versus The Managing Committee of The Vayyattupuzha Service Co-Operative Bank, Ltd No. Q 354, Represented by Its President, Pathanamthitta District & Others High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 M/s. Rite Choice Foundations and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, C.K. Sridhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 P. Thenmozhi Versus Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. By its Chairman, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 P. Thenmozhi Versus Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. By its Chairman, Chennai & Another Supreme Court of India
16-03-2020 Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-03-2020 Tirur Motor Transport Co-Operative Society Ltd., Represented by President, Tirur & Another Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General), Malappuram & Another High Court of Kerala
12-03-2020 M. Subramaniyan, President, Chennai Government Officers Co-operative Building Society Ltd., Chennai Versus The Registrar (Housing), Vepery, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 Vijay Kumar Singh Versus Rana Cooperative Housing Society & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 S.S. Sundaresan Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-03-2020 V.S. Senthil Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2020 Raveendran Nair Versus The State Co-Operative Election Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
06-03-2020 J.A. Murugan Versus The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Madhya Pradesh Housing & Infrastructure Development Board & Another Versus Vijay Bodana & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Shri Chand Construction & Apartments Private Limited & Another Versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. High Court of Delhi
04-03-2020 Maria Goretti Beck - Maria Beck Versus Infant Jesus Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-03-2020 Bhanot House Flat Owners/Occupants Association Versus Bhanot Construction & Housing Limited Through Its Directors Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
02-03-2020 The Periyar District Consumer Co-Operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. No. AA467 Versus B. Balagopal (Died) Through Lrs. & Others Supreme Court of India
27-02-2020 Nachammal & Others Versus The Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 M/s. Jain Housing and Construction Ltd Versus Pushpa Roche & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 N. Elangovan Versus The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Krishnagiri & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 The Chennai Metropolitan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Chennai Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 R. Thenmozhi Versus The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing & Urban Development, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-02-2020 Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Another Versus Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-02-2020 Ummer Nechikkadan Versus Nilambur Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Director, Malappuram & Others High Court of Kerala
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
19-02-2020 Rajendra K. Bhutta Versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Another Supreme Court of India
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 M/s. Arihant Foundations and Housing Ltd, Chennai Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Provident Housing Limited High Court of Delhi
17-02-2020 K.441 Brammadesam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Rep. by its Secretary, G. Sundaram & Others Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward -2 (5), Erode & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-02-2020 N. Cristel John Versus The Manager, District Co-operative Bank, Parassala Branch & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
11-02-2020 Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd., Kolkata Versus Smita Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-02-2020 S. Ramani Versus The District Registrar/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative, Office of the Co-operative Societies Deputy Registrar, Namakkal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Kolhapur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Through its I/c. Asstt. Manager Rajendrakumar Shantinath Mithari Versus Indira Gandhi Mahila Sahakari Soot Girani Ltd., Ichalkarani & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-02-2020 Rajasthan Housing Board, Rajasthan & Another Versus Ashish Verma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-02-2020 Rajasthan Housing Board Through Secretary Jyoti Nagar Jaipur Rajasthan & Another Versus V.V. Harit National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-02-2020 The Registrar, The Co-operative Society, N.V. Natarajan Maligai & Others Versus M. Elango High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 India Affordable Housing Solutions, (IAHS) & Another Versus Konark Infra Developers Private Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 Manimegalai V/S The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory V/S Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12 New Delhi High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 N.V. Usha Versus Njarakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. High Court of Kerala
05-02-2020 M. Sasidharan Versus The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
05-02-2020 Dhanbad Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd , Having Its egistered Office At Hirapur Versus Prabir Kumar Chatterjee High Court of Jharkhand
04-02-2020 The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Unit - I, Coimbatore Versus R. Parthasarathi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by the Executive Engineer & Admin. Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit, Coimbatore Versus S. Doraisamy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
03-02-2020 M. Dhanavel Versus The Office of the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 K. Venugopalan Versus The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Union Bank of India V/S North East Region Housing Finance Company Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
31-01-2020 Uttar Bhartiya Rajak Samaj Panchayat Banganga Rajak Samaj Co-Operative Housing Society (Proposed) & Another Versus State of Maharashtra Through Secretary & Others Supreme Court of India
31-01-2020 Vinay Kumar Mittal & Others Versus Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
31-01-2020 K. Chelladurai Versus The Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Pedro Marcel Ferrao Versus VPK Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
31-01-2020 K.2058, Saravanampatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Now name changed as K.2058, Saravanmpatti Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Rep. by its Secretary Versus The Income Tax officer, Non Corp Ward -2 (5), CBE, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 N. Jalandar Versus The Secretary, Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation Employees Co-operative Housing Board Society Limited, Dindigul & Others Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
30-01-2020 Federation of River Residency Cooperative Housing Society Versus Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Others National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
29-01-2020 Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi & Another Versus Reji Paul Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
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 Aleyamma Mathew, Thiruvalla, Formerly working as Regional Manager Recover, M/s. Kerala Housing Finance Limited, Branch Office at Pathanamthitta Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
28-01-2020 Murshidabad Sale & Supply Co-Operative Society Ltd. Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
28-01-2020 The Nilamangai Nagar Welfare Association, (Rego.No.81/80) Rep. By its Secretary K.Sankararama Sarma, Chennai Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development (UDSRI) Dept., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Vaikom Taluk Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Versus Anilkumar & Others High Court of Kerala
28-01-2020 M.S. Marketing Services, Salem, Represented by its Proprietor M. Satya Versus The District Revenue Officer / General Manager The Salem District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited Sithanoor, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 Rajasthan Housing Board, Rajashtan & Others Versus Khushal Meghwal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-01-2020 Charley Panthallookaran Versus The Joint Registrar(General) of Co-Operative Societies, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2020 Santosh Versus The District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Buldhana, Tahsil & District Buldhana & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
23-01-2020 The Managing Committee, The Vellathooval Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Idukki, Represented by Its President Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General), Idukki & Another High Court of Kerala
23-01-2020 S.M. Syed Nazeer & Another V/S The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Krishnagiri Region, Krishnagiri & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 The Chennai Metropolitan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Rep. by its Secretary / Deputy Registrar V. Nithyanandam Versus The Inspector General of Registration Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 K.S. Rema Devi, Accountant, Azhoor-Muttappalam Service Co-Operative Bank, Thiruvananthapuram Versus The Kerala Co-Operative Service Examination Board, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvannathapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
20-01-2020 Andoorkonam Service Co-Operative Bank, Represented by Its Secretary- In-Charge, Thiruvananthapuram Versus The Income Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
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
14-01-2020 Managing Director, Jammu & Kashmir Housing Board & Another Versus Amarjeet Kaur & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
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
13-01-2020 The Sada Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., through its General Manager, Pratosh R. Lotlikar Versus Prasad U. Parab & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
10-01-2020 Nilambur Co-Operative Urban Bank Versus Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General) High Court of Kerala
10-01-2020 The Secretary, Udumbanchola Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Idukki Versus S. Rani Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
10-01-2020 T.V. Vishwanath Gupta & Others Versus Amara Jyothi House Building Co- Operative Society Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-01-2020 The Bhavani Kudal Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager, V. Palanisamy Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Erode Income Tax Office, Erode 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 Solaisamy (deceased)& Another Versus Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board Nandanam, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 Kuthannur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Palakkad, Represented by Its Secretary & Others Versus The Income Tax Officer, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
07-01-2020 Air Force Naval Housing Board Versus Air CMDE B K Gandhi (Retd) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


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