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



V.K. Kasim & Others v/s Somasundar & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- V.K. CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U74999PY1963PTC000065

    Writ Petition No. 18668 of 2016 (GM CPC)

    Decided On, 12 March 2018

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

    For the Petitioners: H.V. Harish, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2, J.C. Kumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This WP is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order Dtd: 17.3.2016 passed on IA No.5 filed under Order Vi Rule 17 R/W Sec/151 of CPC to permit the Plaintiffs/Petitioners to amend the plant in O.S.No.5276/2009 application filed by the petitioners on the file of 1st Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (Cch-2) Vide Annexure-A and Consequently allow the application (Ia-5) filed under Order 6 Rule 17 R/W Section 151 of CPC to amend plaint in O.S.No.5276/2009 Etc.)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents are before this court and file into court a compromise petition stating that the parties have arrived at an amicable resolution of the subsisting disputes.

2. The parties are present before this court. The GPA Holder of the petitioners is identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first respondent Sri. Somasunder party-in-person is present. The second respondent is also present before the court and is identified by his counsel. The first respondent is identified by the second respondent. The respondents have affixed their hands to the compromise petition before this court.

The compromise petition reads as follows:-

"COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF CPC, ENTERED BETWEEN PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS

1. The Petitioners /plaintiffs have filed the above case for the relief of permanent injunction and other reliefs against the defendants with respect to suit schedule property. The petitioners had also filed amendment application seeking relief of declaration that they are the owners of suit schedule property and for other releifs. The amendment application is rejected by the Court below and the petitioners have preferred this Writ petition 18668/2016, on the file of this Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In view of this compromise, the respondent has no objections for allowing said writ petition in accordance with Law.

2. At the instance of elders and well wishers of the parties, the petitioners/plaintiffs and respondent and defendants have settled all their claims respectively with respect to suit schedule property and the property claimed by respondent/defendants, which is one and the same.

3. The respondent No 1/defendant No.1 states that he has allegedly sold property bearing old Assessment No.32/1, present Assessment No.32/5, measuring 5445 square feet situated at Kempapura village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring East to West :33 feet and North to South:165 feet as per the sale deed dated 04.04.2009, registered in the office sub-registrar Byatarayanpura, Bengaluru, bearing Registration No.BYP-1-00058-2009-10, stored in CD.No.BYPD29, dated 04.04.2009, infavour of 2nd respondent/2nd defendant and he has received valuable consideration amount and has no right, title or interest or possession over the same. However, he has joined this compromise petition as required by plaintiffs and intending purchasers through them. Hence, the 1st defendant is a party to this compromise petition. The defendants admit and confirm that the property shown in sale deed dated 04.04.2009 is the same property being claimed by plaintiffs as per sale deed dated 20.10.2004. In view of compromise between the parties and in lieu of paying consideration amount by plaintiffs to the defendant No 2, the defendants 1 and 2 have un-equivocally agreed to treat said sale deed dated 04.04.2009, as null and void and have no objection for declaring said sale deed as void document and not binding on plaintiffs. Further the defendants admit that they shall not make use said document or any other document claiming right, title or possession over suit property for any purpose and agreed to return the same at the time of receiving entire cash as shown in the compromise petition along with all other documents in their possession. Since schedule property is sold, for valuable consideration amount, first defendant has no right, title or possession over the same.

4. Whereas the respondents/defendants affirm, confirm and admit that the petitioners/plaintiffs are the absolute owners of all that piece and parcel of property bearing site No.1 House List No.295, and now bearing (new No.295/1) 73/32/1, BBMP Khatha No.481/295/1/01, situate at Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, formed in Sy.No.32/1 of Kempapura Village, measuring East to West 34 and North to South 160 ft total measuring 5440 sq.ft, having purchased same from Dr.R.N.Sujatha, and Mr.B.L.Shastry, vide Registered Sale deed dated 20.10.2004, registered in the office of senior Sub-registrar, Yelahanka, Bangalore, registered as Document No.-YAN-1-114564-2004-05, stored in CD No.YAND 88 dated 20.10.2004 for valuable consideration amount and the defendants have affirmed and confirmed the registered sale deed dated 20-10-2004. The defendants further agree, affirm and confirm that the 1st defendant Sri.Somasundar had purchased said property as per registered sale deed dated:27.09.1979, registered in the office of sub-registrar Bangalore North Taluk, bearing Registration No.1932/1979-80, from its lawful owners Sri.M.Rangappa S/o.Anjanappa and it was his self acquired property. The original sale deed dated 27.09.1979 is with petitioners/plaintiffs and he has no objection for plaintiffs to retain the same. The defendants further agree and confirm that the execution of GPA dated 04.06.1990 in favour of one M.R. Narasaraju and consequent sale deed in favour of Dr.R.N.Sujatha and B.L.Shasthri vide its sale deed dated 24.11.1990, registered as Document No 1641/1990-91.

5. In view of this compromise, for releasing the right, title, interest and possession over suit schedule property, if any, which is the same as that of property claimed by defendant No.2 by virtue of sale deed dated 04.04.2009, the defendant No.2 has agreed to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only)(after deduction of applicable TDS), from the plaintiffs as per the terms of this compromise and on receipt of the said amount, release, relinquish all his right, title and interest, if any and possession over schedule property or the property claimed by him by virtue of sale deed dated 04.04.2009. The defendant No 1/Sri Somsundar has no objection for payment of said amount in favour of 2nd defendant Sri M. Satish, as he has already received valuable consideration amount from him.

6. The petitioners/plaintiffs and intending purchasers have agreed to pay Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one Crore Only) in the following manner:

(a) Rupees 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only), by way of cheque/Demand Draft bearing No.748566, dated 07.03.2018, drawn on Federal Bank, Thamarassery in favour of defendant No.2/ M.Satish, to be handed over to respondent No 2/defendant No 2 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.No 18668/2016(subject to its realisation).

(b) Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only), by way of Demand Draft in favour of respondent No 2/defendant No.2, on the date of compromise petition is presented and accepted in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs in the above case.

(c) Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only), by way of Demand Draft, in favour of respondent No 2/defendant No.2 on the day of executing registered sale deed (Confirmation Deed) in favour of plaintiffs or the intending purchasers, deducting TDS amount.

7. Thus, the respondent No 2/defendant No.2 acknowledges the receipt of the entire agreed consideration amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only), including TDS deductions in full and final settlement towards his claim over the suit schedule property and the property claimed by him by virtue of sale deed dated 04.04.2009, as stated above subject to realisation of above amount as mentioned above.

8. The Respondent no 1/1st defendant Sri Somasundar hereby has understanding with 2nd defendant and hereby unequivocally release, relinquish his right, title, possession if any over schedule property or self acquired property purchased by him by virtue of sale deed dated 27.09.1979 or sold to defendant No 1 by virtue of sale deed dated 04.04.2009 and un-equivocally admit the ownership of the plaintiff as per Registered Sale deed dated 20.10.2004, registered in the office of senior Sub-registrar, Yelahanka, Bangalore, registered as Document No.-YAN-1-114564-2004- 05, stored in CD No.YAND 88 dated 20.10.2004.

9. The respondents/defendants have also agreed to set aside the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of 2nd defendant dated 04.04.2009, which is registered as Document bearing No.BYP-1-00058/2009-10, stored in CD No.BYPD 29, in the office of the sub-registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bangalore with respect of the suit schedule property and declare it as not binding and null and void due to execution of earlier sale deeds, which are admitted and accepted as per suit claim of plaintiffs. Further, the respondent No 2/defendant No.2 concedes his claim over the suit schedule property and the defendant No.2 delivers the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs on the day of receipt of consideration amount along with constructions therein and they admits the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

10. The petitioners/ plaintiffs shall be entitled to continue to hold, possess and enjoy the suit schedule property as absolute owners and deal with the same in any manner they likes and they will be entitled to get the revenue entries transfer in their names in all the revenue records/khata in respect of the suit schedule property.

11. The respondents/defendants further undertake to get tenants in the suit schedule property vacated and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the petitioners/plaintiffs at their cost and the defendants shall not claim any amount for the same from the petitioners/plaintiffs.

12. The respondents/defendants hereby undertake that they will not claim any further amount or litigate any further in what so ever manner either directly or indirectly or through anybody over the suit schedule property against the plaintiffs or intending purchasers and they shall resolve such claims, if any at their cost.

13. The respondents/defendants hereby undertake to execute any necessary documents if required for beneficial enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs in future and for effective cancellation of sale deed or such deeds in the true intent of these presents. The respondents/defendants further undertake to come and sign as confirming parties in the sale deed, if the plaintiffs intend to sell the suit schedule property to others without claiming further amounts.

14. The respondents/defendants have categorically admitted that they have not claimed and will not claim any right, title or interest as per sale deed dated 04.04.2009 or by virtue of sale deed dated 27.09.1979 and that they have not entered into any kind of negotiation with respect to said property and not dealt with the same or deal with the same in future in any manner, so as to prejudice the right and interest of plaintiffs over suit schedule property.

15. The petitioners/Plaintiff and respondents/Defendants hereby declares that settlement reached between them in the above suit is final and conclusive and the same shall not be re- opened in any circumstances. The respondents/defendants have not retained any portion of suit schedule property or the property claimed by defendants by virtue of sale deed dated.04.04.2009 and 27.09.1979 and affirm and confirm that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of said property.

16. In lieu of compromise, the parties have also entered into separate sale agreement with intending purchaser and have agreed to execute such deeds/sale deed after recording compromise as per terms and conditions of this compromise, in accordance with law.

17. This compromise petition is entered into between the parties after understanding its contents and the same is not the outcome of any fraud or coercion.

WHEREFORE, the petitioners/plaintiffs and respondents/defendants pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to record the compromise petition and allow above petition, in the interest of justice.

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

All that piece and parcel of property residential site bearing No.1 House List No.295, and now bearing (new No.295/1) 73/32/1, BBMP Khatha No.481/295/1/01, formed in Sy.No.32/1, situate at Kempapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 34 and North to South 160 ft total measuring 5440 sq.ft, (old Assessment No.32/1, New Assessment No.32/5, measuring 5445, ward No.18 of BBMP, Serial No.654-32/5 as claimed by the defendants) and bounded on

East by ; Private property (Formerly property belonging to Rangappa,

West by ; Private property (Formerly property belonging to Leena

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

, North by ; Road, South by ; Private property (Formerly property belonging to Venkataramanappa Sd/-. 1. Sri.V.K.Kasim, 2. Sri.V.K.Mohammed 3. Smt.P.Shahina, 4. Smt.P.Shareena 5. Sri.A.C.Mohammed Shafeer Rep.by their GPA Holder Sri.Sahil.P.P" Sd/- Advocate for petitioners/Plaintiffs petitioners/Plaintiffs Sd/- 2. Sri. Somasundar/Respondent no 1 Sd/- 3. Sri.M.Satheesh@M.Satish/Respondent2 Sd/- Advocate for respondent No 2 Bengaluru Date: 12.03.2018" 3. The learned counsels pray that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. 4. In terms of compromise a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- is paid by way of Demand Draft drawn on Federal Bank, Thamarassery Branch bearing No.748566 dated 07.03.2018. The same is handed over to the counsel for the second respondent and the second respondent admits the receipt of the same. 5. Compromise petition is taken on record and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of compromise petition. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of compromise petition and the matter is remitted back to the lower court, for disposal in terms of the compromise petition. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-05-2020 V.K. Dayanand & Others Versus Kitty @ Krishna Reddy & Others High Court of Karnataka
17-03-2020 V.K. Anusree Versus Union of India, Represented by Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
06-03-2020 Food Corporation of India & Another Versus M/s. V.K. Traders & Others Supreme Court of India
17-02-2020 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) Versus V.K. Gupta High Court of Delhi
30-01-2020 V.K. Fathima Versus Kalathil Kundancheri Janaki & Another 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
09-12-2019 V.K. Vijuna Versus K. Mithun High Court of Kerala
12-11-2019 V.K. Firoz Babu Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
23-10-2019 V.K. Dhingra Versus Shri Ram Scientific Industrial Research Foundation High Court of Delhi
30-08-2019 V.K. Gaur Versus Union of India High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
08-08-2019 Dr. V.K. Jain Versus State of Rajasthan & Others Supreme Court of India
18-07-2019 K.M. Palanisamy Versus V.K. Sagunthala Devi High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2019 B.K. Gupta (wrongly mentioned as V.K. Gupta) & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
06-05-2019 V.K. Singh, I.P.S. Director General of Prisons & Correctional Services, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad Versus Sandeep & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2019 V.K. Manivannan Versus The Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-02-2019 V.K. Varadhan Versus The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cuddalore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2019 V.K. Tamilmani Versus Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Chengalpattu & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2018 V.K. Chitharanjan Versus Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam, A Public Limited Company Having Its Registered Office At Kollam, Represented by The General Secretary V.K. Natesan & Others High Court of Kerala
12-12-2018 V.K. Lakshmi Versus C.R. Sivanandam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2018 D. Santhosam Versus V.K. Periyasamy High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2018 M. Ashraf Versus V.K. Kasim High Court of Kerala
02-11-2018 V.K. Sivasankar Versus V.K. Sivan & Others Supreme Court of India
04-09-2018 V.K. Anant son of late S.R. Anant, Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
29-08-2018 V.K. Jayarathinam & Others Versus The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-06-2018 V.K. Pandian Versus The State of Tamil Nadu & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-06-2018 V.K. Kannadasan Versus Radhakrishnan & Others High Court of Kerala
11-05-2018 V.K. Bhuraria & Others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent & ST, Udaipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
11-05-2018 V.K. Bhuraria and Others V/S Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Udaipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
09-04-2018 V.K. Shemeer, Ernakulam District Versus The Joint Regional Transport Officer, Perumbavoor High Court of Kerala
06-04-2018 M. Ramasamy Versus V.K. Ramanathan (Deceased) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-03-2018 Vatakara Co-Operative Ayurveda Hospital Ltd, Represented by Secretary, V.K. Saseendra Babu & Another Versus Puthalath Thazha Kuniyil Ayisha & Others High Court of Kerala
16-03-2018 V.K. Dhanasekar Versus Vasantha High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2018 Bhanu & Others Versus V.K. Iyyanathan High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-03-2018 B. Susila & Others Versus V.K. Ramanathan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-03-2018 Peethambaran Versus V.K. Sathyaswaroopan High Court of Kerala
08-02-2018 C.R. Sivanandham (deceased) & Others Versus V.K. Ramprasad & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-01-2018 V.K. Gupta & Associates & Others Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-01-2018 State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary to Government(Urban Affairs), Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat & Another Versus V.K. Mohandas High Court of Kerala
02-01-2018 V.K. John Versus Appu John (deceased) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-11-2017 Antony Xaviour & Others Versus The State Represented by the Inspector of Police, V.K. Puram Police Station, Tirunelveli & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-10-2017 V.K. Pattabiraman Versus K. Sambamurthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-09-2017 The Manager, Muthoot Mercantile Ltd, Chungam, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad Versus V.K. Ummer Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
31-08-2017 The Accounts Officer Telecom Revenue, Tuticorin & Another Versus V.K. Seshu Naicker Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
22-08-2017 V.K. Mishra, Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives Versus Secretary Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
10-08-2017 The Chairman, M/s National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Versus V.K. Thankappan & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
11-07-2017 The Managing Director, Madurai Versus V.K. Akkaiyasamy & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-06-2017 V.K. Harihara Sharma & Another Versus Madras Cements Limited Rep by S. Ramachandran, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-06-2017 V.K. Bhatnagar Versus Canara Bank & Another High Court of Delhi
01-06-2017 Dhanupriya Versus V.K. Palanisamy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2017 V.K. Jayakumar Versus The District Collector High Court of Kerala
04-05-2017 V.K. Juneja, presently working as Principal Private Secretary, Competition Commission of India, Hindustan Times House, New Delhi Versus Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
04-05-2017 Baburao V. Nair, Baburaj V.K. Nair (Correct name) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
25-04-2017 V.K. Velu & Others Versus Anil Kumar & Others High Court of Kerala
24-03-2017 V.K. Balasubramanian (Dead) By Lrs. Versus C. Sumathi Supreme Court of India
03-03-2017 K. Murugan & Others Versus Dr. V.K. Marimuthu & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-03-2017 V.K. Saju (Ex Hav 14271148 H), Kannur, Kerala Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Government (Defence), Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Koch
24-02-2017 M/s. V.K. Udyog Limited Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-02-2017 No.1368655a, Ex Nk V.R. Biddappa, Meg, S/O. Late V.K. Ramu, Vill & P.O. Kaikari, Tehsil-Virajpet, Dist. Coorg, Karnataka State Versus Union of India, Represented By The Secretary To The Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Department, South Block, New Delhi & Others Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Koch
02-02-2017 V.K. Jaiswal Versus U.P.S.R.T.C. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
23-01-2017 V.K. Seenivasan (died) & Others Versus Vignesh & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-01-2017 V.K. Kamala Devi Versus The South Indian Bank Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, M.F. Rofi & Others High Court of Kerala
10-01-2017 Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur-I, Jaipur & Others Versus V.K. Rana & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
09-01-2017 V.K. Rajan Versus The District Collector, Kancheepuram & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2017 V.U. Pathrose, Represented by Power of Attorney Holder P.A. Augustine Versus V.K. Jeevalan & Another High Court of Kerala
14-11-2016 Appu John Estates Charitable Trust rep. by its Trustee: S.C. Vijayakumar Versus V.K. John & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-11-2016 V.K. Vimala Versus Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
04-11-2016 Dr. V.K. Satish Versus Madiwalappa Bhimappa Vaalikar High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
20-10-2016 V.K. Rahaman @ V. Kaleel Rahaman Versus Pailwan Sahib Charities Trust 1911 rep. by its Trustees & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-09-2016 V.K. Usha @ Saraswathi Versus Diety Dhandayuthapani High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2016 V.K. Manoj Pai Versus Indirambal & Others High Court of Kerala
07-09-2016 V.K. Manoj Pai Versus Indirambal & Others High Court of Kerala
31-08-2016 V.K. Sood Engineers And Contractors Versus Northern Railway High Court of Delhi
26-08-2016 V.K. Baburaj Versus Roads & Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Limited & Others High Court of Kerala
19-08-2016 V.K. Srivastava Versus Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railways, Headquarters Office, Baroda House, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
05-08-2016 K.V. Prasad Versus M/s. V.K. Lalco Private Limited, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director & Another High Court of Karnataka
12-07-2016 V.K. Sankarankutty Versus State of Kerala, represented by The Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala
07-07-2016 Dr. V.K. Agrawal Versus University of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
04-07-2016 No. 13937814 M Ex- Hav (Hony Nb/Sub) V.K. Rajan Pillai Versus The Union of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Army), South Block, New Delhi & Others Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Koch
30-05-2016 Virendra Kumar Anand @ V.K. Anand Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-04-2016 D. Paulraj Versus V.K. Balamurugan Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-04-2016 V.K. Anand Versus S. Sujatha High Court of Karnataka
11-04-2016 Dr. V.K. Gupta Versus Krishan Kumar & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2016 Surendran V.K., Ernakulam Versus The Elavoor Service Co-Operative Bank, Angamaly & Another High Court of Kerala
09-03-2016 V.K. Veerasangili Versus The Superintendent of Police, Theni & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-03-2016 VK. Veerappan & Others Versus The Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-02-2016 V.K. Bhat Versus G. Ravi Kishore & Another Supreme Court of India
25-02-2016 The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Thodupuzha, Idukki Versus V.K. Reji & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
16-02-2016 The Executive Director, Index Chits & Finance Private Ltd. Versus V.K. Balan & Others High Court of Kerala
03-02-2016 V.K. Agarwal Versus Swami Nath Nigam & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-02-2016 V.K. Enterprises Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
28-01-2016 V.K. Mantrao & Sons & Others Versus M/s. Select Global Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
21-01-2016 V.K. Mittal & Others Versus Registrar General, High Court of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
22-12-2015 V.K. Gupta Versus Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial Tri. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
22-12-2015 V.K. Gupta Versus Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial Tri. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
08-12-2015 Commissioner, Central Excise, Lucknow Versus V.K. Tulsian High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-12-2015 V.K. Aggarwal & Others Versus Chairman & M.D, IRCTC & Others High Court of Delhi
19-10-2015 Laila Kassim Versus V.K. Kunjumol High Court of Kerala
14-10-2015 V.K. Venkatesan Versus Dhanalakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-09-2015 V.K. Venkitachalam Versus State of Kerala, represented by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department Secretariat & Others High Court of Kerala
21-09-2015 V.K. Gopal & Others Versus The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court


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