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



V. Narasimha @ Alugudda Narsimha @ Jahangiri v/s The State of A.P. Rep by its Public Prosecutor


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

    Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2013

    Decided On, 24 March 2018

    At, In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

    For the Appellant: Tata Singaiah Goud, (Legal Aid, Advocate). For the Respondent: The Public Prosecutor (TG).



Judgment Text

A. Shankar Narayana, J.

1. The appellant herein viz., V. Narasimha is the accused, who faced trial for the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), on the ground that he alleged to have killed his wife Smt. Narsamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) having subjected her to cruelty suspecting her fidelity.

2. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, believing the evidence let in by the prosecution and mostly relying on the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the learned Magistrate, PW.8, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution could prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and recorded conviction under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Code’), for the charge under Section 302 of IPC, and inflicted Imprisonment for Life besides imposing a Fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months by his judgment under challenge dated 11.11.2009 in S.C. No.189 of 2009.

3. Heard Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant - accused, and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana, and perused the judgment under challenge including the material on record.

4. We would like to advert to the submissions made by the learned counsel after narrating the prosecution case projected through the charge sheet.

(a) The marriage between the accused and the deceased took place six (6) years prior to the date of incident. Out of their wedlock, a son was born to them named as Shivudu, and he was three (3) years old on the date of incident. To eke out livelihood by doing labour work in and around Moulali, they started residing in a hut near Gayatrinagar Water Tank. For some time, they lived happily. But, in the recent past, the accused, who started suspecting her character, was beating her frequently. On 16.02.2009 at about 10.40 p.m., they had their dinner and they were about to go asleep. At that juncture, the accused picked up quarrel, abused her in filthy language casting aspersions that she developed illegal contacts, beat her with hands, took up kerosene tin, poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. When the flames spread all over the hut, unable to bear the burns, she raised hue and cry and ran out of the hut. The neighbours, who heard her hue and cry, extinguished the flames and got admitted her in Gandhi Hospital for treatment. When the duty medical officer from Gandhi Hospital sent a medico legal intimation, PW.11, the Assistant Sub Inspector, was sent to Gandhi Hospital to record the statement of the victim, who having recorded the statement, was also informed by the duty doctor that already PW.8, learned Magistrate, came and recorded the statement of the victim (deceased), and handed over the same to PW.13, Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No.73 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A of IPC and issued First Information Report (FIR) under Ex.P-12. PW.13 instructed PW.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, who visited the scene of occurrence and conducted panchanama in the presence of mediators, PW.10 and another as in Ex.P-1 and drawn a rough sketch of scene of offence as in Ex.P-2.

(b) Later, PW.13 took up investigation and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and when the accused surrendered himself on 20.02.2009 before PW.13 at the police station, he was sent for judicial remand.

(c) When the victim was admitted in Gandhi Hospital on the intervening night of 16/17.02.2009, the duty medical officer, PW.9, sent a requisition to the learned Magistrate, who was engaged in recording dying declaration of yet another victim in the same hospital, on receipt of that requisition at 12.46 a.m., recorded the statement of the victim (deceased) as to the cause of burns she sustained and the person, who is responsible for causing the said burns on her person as in Ex.P-7.

(d) When PW.12 received intimation from Gandhi Hospital as to death of the deceased on 19.09.2009, he altered Section of Law from 307 of IPC to 302 of IPC. Charge sheet was laid alleging the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 302 of IPC against the accused.

5. The learned Sessions Judge, when examined the accused for the said charge on 25.06.2009, since he pleaded not guilty, proceeded with trial.

6. During trial, in order to prove the guilt of the accused for the aforesaid charges, the prosecution altogether examined (18) witnesses and marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 besides exhibiting material objects 1 to 3. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined and no contradictions were elicited to exhibit them.

7. The learned counsel for the accused would submit that the accused was not at his residence and, in fact, he went to witness a movie and when he returned home having witnessed the movie, he came to know about the occurrence and, in fact, he even handed over cinema tickets to the police which aspect was not dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, lacks proper appreciation of evidence on record.

8. The second submission he made is that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 ought not to have been believed for the reason, if they really extinguished the flames and saved the victim (deceased), there ought to be burns on their hands which the learned Sessions Judge overlooked to examine.

9. Third, recording of dying declaration by the learned Magistrate on 16/.02.2009 at 1.20 a.m. is doubtful, for the reason, the statement made by the deceased as in Ex.P-9 was at 10.40 a.m. on 16.02.2009 and thus, accounts for a suspicious feature which ought to have been noted by the learned Sessions Judge and accorded benefit of doubt to the accused, and, therefore, sought to allow the appeal setting aside the conviction and sentences inflicted on the accused.

10. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the plea of alibi raised by the accused is unsustainable as it lacks proof which burden completely rests on the accused and even the circumstance that the accused did not assert to it when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code is sufficient to reject that submission out-rightly. Concerning the second submission that PWs.1 and 2 since did not receive any burns to their hands, to disbelieve their presence at the place and time of occurrence, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the persons who extinguish flames need not always receive injuries and mere absence of injuries on the hands of PWs.1 and 2 is no ground to disbelieve their presence at the place and time of occurrence.

11. In regard to dying declaration, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there is absolutely no inconsistency in the evidence of PW.8, the learned Magistrate, who recorded statement of the deceased, took every precaution as mandated by the relevant Rules of practice and the doctor was also present at the time when statement was made by the deceased, and, thus, the dying declaration and the evidence of PW.8 coupled with the evidence of the doctor examined as PW.9 as to sustaining burns by the deceased, would clinchingly establish the complicity of the accused and there is no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration as it is not tainted with malice.

12. Thus, the learned Public Prosecutor would support the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge leading to conviction of the accused and sentences inflicted on him.

13. When we look at the evidence on record in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, we opine that we will have to answer the following points:

1. Whether the dying declaration under Ex.P-7 recorded by PW.8 is creditworthy, implicitly reliable and can form basis for convicting the accused?

2. Whether the prosecution could prove the motive for the accused to kill the deceased?

3. Whether the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and the consequent conviction for the offence of murder can be sustained?

POINT Nos.1 to 3:

14. A cursory glance at the evidence let in by the prosecution would unfold that there is no eyewitnesses to the actual occurrence except the dying declaration of the victim recorded by PW.8 as in Ex.P-7. The other witnesses, who are examined as PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4, are circumstantial witnesses, but, their evidence cannot be brushed aside, at least, to the extent of testimony of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4, to whom the deceased soon after she sustained burns when she was set ablaze, made an oral statement near the hut when the flames were extinguished by PWs.1 to 3 respectively, that her husband poured kerosene and set fire to her. Thus, the statement of the deceased made to them account for dying declaration. This apart, there is yet another statement available on record recorded by PW.10 at the hospital on receipt of medico legal intimation from the duty doctor PW.9, who, on the instructions of PW.13, went to Gandhi Hospital and reduced the statement of the deceased in to writing which constitutes basis for launching criminal action against the accused. Thus, we find three (3) dying declarations on record and if no inconsistency is to be found, there cannot be any hesitation to accept and act upon the dying declaration recorded by PW.8, the learned Magistrate, and to convict the accused on the sole basis of the dying declarations. That has been the settled law in regard to which we would like to refer to certain rulings rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

15. Initially, we intend to take up the plea of alibi put-forth by the accused. At the outset, we would like to observe that there is no material worth the name placed by the accused to support the said plea.

16. The very fact that the accused did not adduce any evidence nor did he explain when examined under Section 313 of the Code, touching the plea of alibi that he has gone to witness a movie and when he returned having witnessed the movie, he learnt that the deceased sustained burns, is sufficient to repel that plea. This apart, even when suggested to the witnesses by the learned counsel, it was not clear as to which movie the accused said to have witnessed and in which theatre he witnessed the said movie. It appears, only to wriggle himself out of the impending accusation and the conviction, he has come up with an artificial and unnatural defence theory putting forth the plea of alibi. We, therefore, do not have any hesitation in rejecting that plea of alibi.

17. We now refer to the caution given by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the guidelines laid down in assessing whether the dying declaration is absolutely credible to constitute the sole basis to record conviction.

18. It is needless to mention that the law is well settled that dying declarations constitute an important piece of evidence which if found veracious and voluntary by the Court could be the sole basis for conviction. What is cautioned by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi (AIR 2017 SC 2161)is that the Court while admitting the dying declarations, must be vigilant towards the need for ‘Compos Mentis Certificate’ from a doctor as well as the absence of any kind of tutoring. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 1)laid down the following guidelines with respect to the admissibility of dying declarations:

'(i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the Court.

(ii) The Court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.

(iii) Where the Court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration.

(iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.

(v) Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.

(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction.

(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.

(viii) Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded.

(ix) When the eye-witness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail.

(x) If after careful scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration.'

19. In Vijay Pal v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2015) 4 SCC 749), referring to its earlier decision in Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat [(1992) 4 SCC 69], it was held that a person suffering 99% burn injuries could be deemed capable enough for the purpose of making a dying declaration and also the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh [(2013) 14 SCC 159], wherein, reliance was placed on the dying declaration of the decetased who had suffered 100% burn injuries on the ground that the dying declaration 3 was found to be credible. These rulings are referred to in the context of submission made by the learned counsel for the accused that the testimony of PW.9, doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination, would show that the deceased sustained 95% burns, and, therefore, it was impossible for the deceased to make a statement to PW.8, the learned Magistrate, and also to PW.11, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, and, therefore, that submission is not worthy of acceptance, the reason being the percentage of burns spoken to by the medical officers in cases where the victim sustain burns would be superficial that too without there being anything in the cross-examination of the medical officer that internal organs were also affected by burns rendering the victim incapable of making oral statement.

20. What has been emphasised by the Hon’ble Apex court in Paniben (Smt.) v. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474), was referred to by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukesh’s Case (supra) and summed up the principles governing dying declarations laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in earlier decisions, thus:

'(i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. (Munnu Raja v. State of M.P. (1976) 3 SCC 104)

(ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. (State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1985) 1 SCC 522; Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar 91983) 1 SCC 211)

(iii) This Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. (K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor (1976) 3 SCC 618)

(iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P. (1974) 4 SCC 264)

(v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. (Kake Singh v. State of M.P., (1981) Supp. SCC 25)

(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. (Ram Manorath v. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 654).

(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu (1980) Supp. SCC 455)

(viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. (Surajdeo Oza v. State of Bihar (1980) Supp. SCC 769)

(ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eye witness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. (Nanahau Ram v. State of M.P. (1988) sup. SCC 152)

(x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. (State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan (1989) 3 SCC 390)'

21. The Hon’ble Apex Court also ruled that even if there are minor discrepancies in the dying declarations, the Court can disregard the same as insignificant.

22. We now intend to examine the dying declaration under Ex.P-7 recorded by PW.8 keeping in view the caution, given by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the guidelines laid down thereto.

23. The evidence of PW.8 would bring out that on the intervening night of 16/17.02.2009 at about 12.46 a.m., he received a requisition from the duty doctor Dr. Jawahar of Female Burns Ward of Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad to record dying declaration of Smt. Narsamma, wife of the accused, who was in Female Burns Ward of Gandhi Hospital, by which time, he was in the very same hospital recording the dying declaration of one Anuradha. The said Narsamma was identified by the duty doctor. He has put some preliminary questions to her and from the answers she had given, he was satisfied that she was conscious and in fit condition to give statement. He, then, recorded her dying declaration in Telugu vernacular language. He obtained the certificate of the doctor before and after recording the statement. He exhibited Ex.P-6, the requisition he received and the dying declaration he recorded as Ex.P-7. He would assert that he has obtained right toe impression on the said statement and the statement was recorded in her own words and she stated to him that her husband set fire to her. No doubt, this witness was cross-examined by the learned defence counsel suggesting to him that he did not record the statement of the deceased, Narsamma and that she was not in a good state of mind to give the statement, that he obtained the signature of the doctor only after recording the statement, but, these suggestions were completely denied by him. Except these suggestions, nothing else was put to him to elicit that the statement made by the deceased was tainted with malice.

24. Now, turning to Ex.P-7 as such, since it assumes vital significance in assessing whether it constitutes the sole basis for convicting the accused for the charge of murder, we intend to refer to what has been stated by her therein. The questions and answers put to her preliminarily in the direction of satisfying himself that the victim (deceased) was conscious, coherent and in a fit condition to give statement, do not require advertence. Certain other questions were put later as to how long back her marriage took place, whether she has children out of wedlock, whether all were residing in the house and where her house was located. Thereafter, PW.8 put the relevant question as to how she sustained burns. We opine that it would be appropriate to extract the answer given by the deceased in her vernacular language along with its English translation:'

'Q: 'TELUGU'

'I got married about six years ago. My husband looked me well prior to two months. We both are doing stone crushing work with some other workers. We work with others and we shall speak with others also. I talk with everyone. My husband started insulting me by stating that I am talking with one and another from two months. After coming back to the house he is going away and coming with drunken stage and abusing me and beating me. I waited with patience, but there is no change in his attitude. He continued abusing me and beating. Today at evening about 4 to 5 hours we reached our house and started quarrel and asked me 'to go and die' and 'to go and die'About 1 hours ago he took kerosene available in the house and poured on me and set fire to me and fled away. On hearing my hues the neighbouring inmates of huts came and set off the fire. One narsimulu informed the same to my brother Venkataiah through telephone. My brother Venkataiah came to me and brought me here.'

25. She affirms stating that what all she disclosed to PW.8 was true. The learned Magistrate then made a note of what all transpired stating that the duty doctor, PW.9 certified the fit state of mind before making statement and after making statement by the deceased to him. He has concluded recording of the said dying declaration at 1.22 a.m.

26. Ex facie, Ex.P-7 reflects that PW.8 strictly adhered to the procedure contemplated by the provisions of Rule 33 of Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990. In fact, all relevant details have been asked by PW.8 and elicited answers through the deceased. One of the answers, which gains significance is that the deceased stated that on hearing hues and cries, one Narsimulu came and put off fire. The said Narsimulu is examined as PW.3 before whom she made the statement that her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire and ran away. He telephoned to ambulance and she was shifted to hospital. Thus, the statement made by the deceased in explaining as to how she sustained burns is very vivid without any ambiguity pointing out the motive for the accused to kill her and pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze and fleeing away from the place of occurrence. Simultaneously, the conduct of the accused also requires consideration. The fact that he did not try to rescue her from flames and shift her to hospital cannot be lost sight off as it was suggested to the witness by the learned counsel for the defence that the deceased herself poured kerosene on her person and set fire to her to commit suicide as the wife of one Venkatesh, who also works with them as a coolie, quarrelled with her just before the incident herein for moving closely with her husband. Therefore, even that stand taken by the accused gets falsified. Thus, even without any corroboration, the dying declaration under Ex.P-7 recorded by PW.8, in our view, is sufficient to hold that the prosecution could prove the complicity of the accused in the commission of offence since we find it absolutely credible and not tainted with malice and not made in an unfit mental state.

27. We also find clinching corroborative evidence through PWs.1, 3 and 4. They are immediate neighbours to the accused and the deceased. Soon after they heard hue and cry of the deceased, they ran out of their huts and found the deceased in flames and extinguished the flames and when they enquired her, she told them that her husband, the accused, poured kerosene on her and set fire to her and ran away. PW.4’s testimony, would show that initially, she heard a galata at about 10.00 p.m. that night and 15 minutes thereafter, she heard the cries and when she peeped from the rear window of her house, she found the wife of the accused coming out of the house in flames and she had fallen on the ground behind her house. When the assertions of PWs.1, 3 and 4 definitely indicate the deceased making a statement to them that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to her, certainly, cannot be thrown out, more particularly, when nothing is brought out in their cross-examination that they were actuated by any ill-will or false motive to swear falsehood against the accused. No doubt, PWs.1 and 3 are related to the deceased, but, on that ground, their testimony cannot be doubted. Thus, we find that the statement made by the deceased to these witnesses constituting oral dying declaration, is consistent with what had been stated by her under Ex.P-7 touching the complicity of the accused.

28. One more dying declaration occurs on record through PW.11 who was instructed by PW.13 on receipt of medico legal information from PW.9 that the victim (deceased) was admitted in Gandhi Hospital with burns, and, he rushed to the hospital and reduced the statement of the deceased as in Ex.P-9. He asserts that the medical officer attending on her told him that her statement was already recorded by a Magistrate and thereafter, he recorded her statement in which, she informed that her husband, suspected her fidelity, poured kerosene on her and set fire to her and he exhibited the said statement as Ex.P-9.

29. A perusal of the said statement would show that about six (6) years prior to the incident, their marriage took place and a child was born out of their wedlock named as Shiva. He was three years old by that time. They used to come and go to the site of Moulali to attend coolie work and they were living in huts near Water Tank of Gayathri Nagar. From recent days, her husband was beating her, suspecting her character. Concerning the incident, she made statement that on 11.06.2009 night at 10.40 hours, they both had dinner and getting ready to sleep, that her husband Narsimha, started abusing her in filthy language and beat

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

her with hands by stating that she had illegal relation with other persons and took kerosene available in their hut and poured on her and set fire, and as the flames were spreading, she came out of the hut by raising hue and cry, on which, the neighbours came there and put off the flames and brought her to hospital for treatment and her husband Narsimha fled away and what all she had stated was true. 30. Thus, even the said statement recorded by PW.11 does not suffer from ambiguity and it is very clear pointing out the complicity of the accused and the accused alone setting fire by pouring kerosene on the deceased. Thus, it completely corroborates the dying declaration under Ex.P-7 made by the deceased. 31. Thus, all the three dying declarations are so consistent that they completely repel the theory put forth by the defence. 32. Therefore, in our considered view, though, there are no direct witnesses to the incident, still, the dying declarations are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 302 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, we hold that the accused committed the offence of murder suspecting the character of the deceased. 33. We have gone through the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge in arriving at the guilt of the accused. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence, more particularly, the dying declarations, and, therefore, we do not find any infirmity warranting interference with the conviction recorded and the sentences inflicted on the accused. Hence, we hold all the three points against the accused and in favour of the prosecution. 34. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal and, therefore, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction recorded and the sentences inflicted on the accused for the charge under Section 302 IPC by the judgment under challenge. 35. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the present criminal appeal stand dismissed. 36. This Court, by the order dated 04.04.2017 in Criminal Appeal M.P. No.589 of 2017, relying on the order dated 02.11.2016 in Criminal Appeal M.P. No.1687 of 2016 in Criminal Appeal No.607 of 2011 [Batchu Rangarao v. State of A.P.], released the accused on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Therefore, we direct the accused to surrender before the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, by 24.04.2018 to serve out the sentence of Imprisonment for Life inflicted on him. In case, he fails to surrender as directed, the learned Sessions Judge shall secure his presence and put him in prison.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

20-01-2020 Lali Guha Versus M/s. Siddhi Binayak Apartment, Rep. by, its Partners & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-01-2020 State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Versus M. Murugesan & Another Supreme Court of India
13-01-2020 D.V. Murugan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Tourism, Art & Culture, Hindu Religious Endowments & Information, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-01-2020 Adithya Modi Versus Union of India, Rep. by the Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-01-2020 Khalid Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Circle Inspector of Police, Mannarkkad, Rep. by Public, Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
09-01-2020 Parul Bala Som Versus M/s. Sansthitaa & Co., Rep. by its sole proprietress, Maliya Dey West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
09-01-2020 Thrissur Municipal Corporation, Rep. by Its Secretary Versus M.A Johny & Others High Court of Kerala
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
08-01-2020 Jeeno James Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
08-01-2020 Subaida & Others Versus State of Kerala, to be Rep. by Secretary, Home Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-01-2020 Wayne Burt Petro Chemicals Private Limited, Rep.by its Senior Manager Finance, V.K. Sivasubramanian & Another Versus The Registrar of Companies, Ministry of corporate affairs, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 Murugan & Others Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram Police Station, Tutcorin Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-01-2020 T.K. Venkateswaran Versus Union of India, Rep. by, Chief Postmaster General, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
03-01-2020 M. Kannadasan Versus Union of India rep. by Ministry of Home Affairs, Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 Uma Maheswari & Others Versus The Union of India Owning Southern Railway rep. by its General Manager, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 The Management, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Rep.by through its Senior Regional Manager Versus The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Dasildar Nagar, Anna Nagar, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-01-2020 Masilamani Versus Shenbagarayanallur Panchayat, Rep. by its President, Shenbagarayanallur Post, Nagai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-12-2019 M/s. Sai Krishna Alloys, Rep. by its Partner, N. Anbalagan Versus The Superintending Engineer (Metro) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-12-2019 M/s. Dalmia Magnesite Corporation (Prop. Dalmia Cement [Bharat] Ltd.,) Salem, Rep. by its General Manager, S. Veeraraghavan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-12-2019 G. Geetha Versus The State Election Commission, Rep. by its Election Commissioner, Inner Ring Road, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 J. John Winfred Versus International Airport Authority of India Rep. By Airport Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 R. Durga Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 V. Saradha Rukmani, Special Deputy Collector (SSB), Collectorate, Salem Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 T.K. Jagadeesan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes and Registration (K), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 The Management of Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited Ranipet Versus Ranipet Labour Union Rep. by its Secretary, S. Nagarajan Ranipet Vellore District & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 K. Baskar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 STC Ex.Exployees Welfare Association (Regd No.16 of 2007), Rep.by its President S. Krishnamurthy Versus The Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 P.K. Gopalan & Others Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-12-2019 Vivekanandan & Others Versus The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Southern Regional Office, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-12-2019 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., AP State Office, Hyderabad Versus M/s. N.R.P. Projects Private Ltd., Rep. by its Partner, Hitesh J. Patel High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-12-2019 The State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus S. Babu & Others High Court of Kerala
13-12-2019 Union of India, Rep. by Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi & Others Versus Swaroop Shetty & Others High Court of Kerala
13-12-2019 K. Jayabharathi Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-12-2019 Natarajan Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thuvakudi Police Station, Trichy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-12-2019 Shanaz Zaheer & Another Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Treasuries & Accounts, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 Sai Electromech Industries Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, Gujarat, India Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 Nobby M. George, Changanassery Tlauk, Rep. by Power of Attorney holder his mother Alice George, Changanassery Versus Jossy Joseph, Kuttanad Taluk, Now Staying With Her Sister Raji Joseph, Erskine Court, Nanuet 10954, New York, USA High Court of Kerala
10-12-2019 Joseph Charles & Others Versus State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station-South, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-12-2019 Anish Versus K.S.E.B., Rep. by Its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Trivandrum & Another High Court of Kerala
09-12-2019 R. Vadivel Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 Muthulakshmi Versus The State rep.by its the Sub Inspector of Police, Vickkiramangalam Police Station, Peramblur High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 Prabhu rep. By his Power Agent, A.K. Chandrasekar Versus Dr. Mohanabalusamy High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 Manager, Frank Ross Pharmacy, Rep. by its Br. Manager, Prasenjit Mukherjee Versus Mohammad Ali Purakait West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-12-2019 G. Viswanathan Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-12-2019 Royal Sundaram General Insurace Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager & Another Versus Subrata Shaw West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-12-2019 P. Selvarani Versus Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. By the Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, TNHB, Thanjavur High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-12-2019 V. Chakrabani Versus State rep. by Inspector of Police, P-7 Vellavedu Police Station, Tiruvallur High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-12-2019 S. Vettyvel Kumar & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Secretary, Public Works Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-12-2019 R. Sutha Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-12-2019 Dr. P. Kirubakaran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Home Department (Police 18), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-12-2019 R. Balaraman & Others Versus The State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-12-2019 M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, V.S. Prasad Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Project Director, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-12-2019 M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Regional Manager, Chennai Versus M/s. Monotech Systems Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-12-2019 M.M. Yohannan & Another Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, (Crime No.615/2014), Thalassery Police Station, Kannur, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
04-12-2019 P. Jagadeesan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 M/s. The India Sugars & Refineries Ltd., Rep. by its: Manager Finance, P.S. Krishnamurthy Versus The Commissioner for Cane Development & Director of Sugar, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
03-12-2019 M/s. Chandragiri Construction Company, Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Managing Partner - K.M. Moideen Kunhi Versus Government of Puducherry, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 P.G. Amirthalingam, Represented by his Power Agent V. Krishnasamy Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 G. Jaisankar Srinivasan Versus The Tamil Nadu Small Industries, Development Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-12-2019 Thimmaiah Versus The State by Vijayanagara Police Station, Rep. by the State Public Porsecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
02-12-2019 G. Vasudevan Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-12-2019 R. Ganesan & Others Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-12-2019 MunMun Chakraborty Versus Triveni Constructions Rep. by Satyendra Pandey & Nag Narayan Mishra & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
29-11-2019 Poondimadha Religious Trust, Rep. by the Chief Functionary, Fr.A. Packiasamy, Poondi Versus The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division (FCRA Wing), New Delhi Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-11-2019 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager Versus Bagili Mallesham & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-11-2019 Avinash Baro & Others Versus The Union of India, Rep. By The Secretary, Min of Information & Broadcasting, A- Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
28-11-2019 M/s. KTR Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director V. Ramu Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VIII Commissionerate, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-11-2019 Laila Christobel Versus State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-11-2019 M/s. Refex Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Production Manager, A. Ravi Versus The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 Green Peak Realty Rep. By Its Proprietor Sumant Kerketta Versus Kaushik Mandal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-11-2019 Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Salem Versus The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 A. Pavadaisamy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Additional Chief Secretray, Rep. By Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 M/s. Hallmark Capital Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Anand Jain, T. Nagar, Chennai Versus The District Collector, Kanchipuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 Arulmigu Somanatha Swami Temple, Rep by its Executive Officer, Kolathur, Chennai Versus K. Boopalan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 Sushil Chandra Bag Versus M/s. Capable Construction Rep. by its prop., Goutam Halder West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-11-2019 Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Versus The Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act (The Assistant Commissioner of Labour) Vellore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 The Management, M/s. Golden Leathers Tanners & Exports, Rep., by D. Muralidharan Versus The Labour Court, Vellore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 Ranjithkumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2019 The Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. (Formerly known as Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.) Zonal office, Chennai, Rep. by its Asst. General Manager & Regional Head Versus The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2019 P. Lakshmipathi & Others Versus The Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Rep., by its Chairman, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2019 Prof. P.L. Vishweshwar Rao Versus State of Telangana, Rep. By Its Chief Secretary to Government & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
22-11-2019 S. Ramesh Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2019 Jewel Homes Pvt. Ltd., Rep By Its Managing Director Casagrante Building, Kochi & Others Versus Jewel Whitefield Apartment Owners' Association, Rep By Its President KP Ayoob & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-11-2019 M/s. National Handloom Development Corporation Limited-(A Government of India Undertaking) Rep.by its Deputy Manager (Finance & Accounts) Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Peelamedu (North) Circle Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 Strides Air Systems (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Director D. Anil Prabhu, Thiruvallur Versus The Authorised Officer, The State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 T. Rangarajan Versus Ashok Leyland Limited rep.by its Plant Director, Ennore, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 K. Shanthi Versus The Government of Tamilnadu & The High level Committee, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Finance (Salaries), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 TNU. Tirupathi & Others Versus India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 Tamilnadu Kattapomman Kattumana Amaippurchara Thozhirchangam, Rep., by its President, Salem Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by Secretary to Government, Labour Welfare Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai Versus Dalmia Cements (Bharath) Ltd., Dalmiapuram, Tiruchirapalli & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 V. Raman Versus The Government of Puducherry, Rep., by its Secretary to Government (Labour), Chief Secretariat, Puducherry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 P. Rathinam Versus The State of Tamilnadu Rep. By Secretary to Government Home Dept., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education (B2) Department, Chennai & Another Versus K. Chinnasamy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-11-2019 General Automation Private Limited, Ernakulam & Another Versus M/s. Advaith Consultancy, Rep by N. Parameswaran High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-11-2019 Thummala Narasimha Reddy Versus State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-11-2019 Sunneesh Sidheek Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
18-11-2019 Texel Industries, Rep. by its Sole Proprietrix, Chennai Versus M/s. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, Chennai Exporters Branch, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 Ranjith Kumar Versus The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Pernambut Circle, Melpatti Police Station High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 M/s. Renowned Auto Products Manufacturers Limited., now known as M/s. Tenneco Automotive India Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Director, J. Ambrose, Hosur & Another Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-11-2019 D. Sajidh Versus The State of Kerala Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala