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



Varsha Thakur v/s The State of Maharashtra & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- VARSHA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24134MH2000PLC130217

Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L71100MH1982PLC028750

    Criminal Application Nos. 4234 of 2007 & 6849 of 2016

    Decided On, 19 July 2018

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.V. NALAWADE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. WADANE

    For the Applicant: N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, M.M. Nerlikar, APP, R2, P.B. Patil, Advocate.



Judgment Text

K.L. Wadane, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this application is taken up for final disposal.

2. This application is filed by the applicant under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of first information report registered vide M.A.No. 1/2007 with Soygaon police station for the offences punishable under section 166, 167, 193, 465, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Heard Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Nerlikar, learned APP for the respondent/State and Mr. P.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

4. The respondent No. 2 herein filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Soygaon, bearing Criminal Case No. 82/2007 against five accused persons including applicant, Tahsildar, Nayab Tahsildar, Talathi and one Khemraj Jadhav. It is alleged by the respondent No. 2/original complainant that accused No. 1 Khemraj is having land gat No. 208 admeasuring 8H 30R situated at Palshi Tq. Soygaon. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 2/complainant has purchased 1H 20R land out of 8H 30R land from accused No. 1 by way of registered saledeed on 28.1.1994. His name is mutated in the 7x12 extract.

5. It is further alleged that there was dispute between respondent No. 2 and the accused No. 1 Khemraj, therefore, in the year 2002 the respondent No. 2 filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 29/2002 with the allegation that the accused No. 1 took physical possession by force and accused No. 2 to 5 aided him. Thereafter the accused No. 1 Khemraj filed an application to inspect the crops, to the accused No. 3 Tahsildar. Accused No. 5 Talathi gave notice to the complainant and the date for inspection was fixed on 26.06.2002. However, it is allegation of the respondent No. 2/original complainant that they did not turn up to the field and the accused No. 4 and 5 i.e. Nayab Tahsildar and Talathi prepared false panchnama on 27.06.2002. On the basis of that document the accused No. 5 Talathi took entry in the 7x12 extract in cultivation column in favour of accused No. 1 Khemraj. Therefore, the respondent No. 2/original complainant filed an appeal before the present applicant and the applicant granted stay to the mutation entry. It is further alleged that respondent No. 2/original complainant also filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on which the learned Magistrate has issued direction under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upon such direction the first information report is lodged and registered against the applicant and others.

6. Mr. Ghanekar, learned counsel for applicant submits that at the relevant time when applicant passes certain orders, she was acting as a Deputy Collector and SubDivisional Magistrate of the concerned division and in the judicial proceeding she has passed some orders, therefore, the applicant is a 'Judge' within the meaning of definition under section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. According to Mr. Ghanekar, learned counsel, the appeal under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code presented by the accused No. 1 Khemraj as well as the appeal presented by the respondent No. 2 /original complainant are judicial proceedings and if certain orders are passed in judicial proceedings then those are passed in the capacity of a 'Judge'. Therefore, there is protection to the applicant under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Hence, Mr. Ghanekar submitted that the trial court is not empowered to take cognizance of the alleged offences.

7. As against this, Mr. P.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/original complainant argued that there was no appeable order, therefore, the act of the applicant was without jurisdiction. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submitted that when there was no order rather appeable it was not expected from the applicant to pass the stay order. Therefore, the act of the applicant is illegal, therefore, no protection is available to the applicant, as claimed by her.

8. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, it is necessary to refer the provisions of section 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act 1985. '2. Definition – In this Act, 'Judge' means not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person -

(a) who is empowered by law to give in any legal proceeding a definitive judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive; or

(b) who is one of a body of persons which body of persons is empowered by law to give such a judgment as is referred in to clause (a).

3. Additional protection to Judges.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of subsection (2), no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a Judge.'

9. Looking to the aforesaid provision it appears that at the relevant time the applicant was working as a Deputy Collector and the SubDivisional Magistrate in a dwell capacity. When the applicant was acting on administration side her designation is to be considered as 'Deputy Collector' and when she was acted while dealing with the legal proceedings her designation is 'Sub-Divisional Magistrate'. In view of the provision of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, certain powers are assigned to the applicant to deal with the mutation entries, its appeals. In view of the provisions of section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the applicant is supposed to deliver a definitive judgment in the matters under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and when the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is acting and exercising the powers under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code then it can be termed as, a person empowered by law to give in any legal proceeding a definitive judgment or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive. So the applicant squarely falls within the definition of section 2 subsection (a) of the Judges (Protection) Act.

10. From the record it appears that the applicant has passed an order under the provision of section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Such orders are appeable or revisionable before the learned Collector of the District. From the record it appears that the applicant was acting in her official capacity and has passed certain orders. If at all, order passed by the applicant was wrong or improper then there is remedy to respondent no. 2/original complainant to file revision/appeal before the Collector.

11. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that there was no order passed on 16.06.2002 and the respondent no. 2 obtained such information under Right to Information Act. However, from the contents of the present applicant it appears that the mutation entries recorded by the revenue authorities for the period from 1994 to 2002 were under challenge before the applicant and it is contended by the accused No. 1 that he came to know about such entries on 16.06.2002, then obviously, 16.06.2002 is not the date of any order but it is the date of knowledge of accused No. 1 about the mutation entries taken during the period from 1994 to 2002.

12. In support of his contention, Mr. Ghanekar, learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in case reported in 2012 CRI. L.J. 4053 (E.S. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), as well as the judgment delivered by the Single Judge of this Court (Coram : K.L. Wadane, J) and contended that the applicant is a 'judge' within the meaning of Section 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act and the proceedings of the appeal under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, before the applicant is a legal proceeding. In addition to that the applicant has relied upon the proviso of section 237 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which reads as follows:

'S.237. Formal and summary inquiries to be deemed judicial proceedings :

(1) A formal or summary inquiry under this Code shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, and the office of any authority holding a formal or summary inquiry shall be deemed to Civil Court for the purposes of such inquiry.

(2) Every hearing and decision, whether in a formal or summary inquiry, shall be in public, and the parties or their authorised agents shall have due notice to attend.'

13. In view of the aforesaid provisions, at the time of granting stay order, the applicant made a summary inquiry under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, therefore, such proceeding is to be treated as judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and the authority holding a formal or summary

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

inquiry shall be deemed a Civil Court for the purpose of such inquiry. 14. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the proceedings presented by the accused No. 1 before the applicant under the provisions of Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is a judicial proceeding and the applicant is deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of section 237 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code as well as a 'judge' within the meaning of section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act. 15. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the applicant is to be protected under the aforesaid provisions and therefore cognizance of the alleged offence cannot be taken against her. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER 1. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B' to the extent of applicant only. 2. In view of the disposal of this application, pending Criminal Application No. 6849/2016 is disposed of. 16. Criminal application is disposed of. 17. Rule is made absolute to the extent of applicant only.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

02-07-2020 Nagpur Agriculture Equipment Engineers Private Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Premnath National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-07-2020 Ashok Janardhan Dhumule Versus M/s. Ankur Seeds Private Limited, Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Vishwas Utagi & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-06-2020 Komal Hiwale Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Mahesh Sambhaji Chafle Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Akheda Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-06-2020 M/s. Thakur Stone Quarries through its Partner Munesh Hotilal Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Vishnupant Motba Kesarkar Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2020 Sahyog Homes Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-06-2020 Sachin @ Satish Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-06-2020 Citizen Forum for Equality, a registered NGO, vide registration no:-MH/645/11, through its President Madhukar Ganpat Kukde Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad Versus Prabhakar Karbhari Ghatmale & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-05-2020 Ms. X Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Abhinav Bharat Congress & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Bhagtam & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Mangesh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 A.P. Suryaprakasam Versus Superintendent of Police, Sangli District, Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-05-2020 Chandrakant Kotecha Charitable Trust Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-05-2020 Pratik & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Mahur Dist. Nanded & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-05-2020 Shekhar @ Mukesh Sanadi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-05-2020 Pradeep Gandhy Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2020 Mohammad Nishat Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Shivray Kulkarni & Others Versus State of Maharashtra &Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Syed Salim & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrayalay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
27-04-2020 Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 Ajay Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
23-04-2020 High Court on its own motion Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-04-2020 Deodutta Gangadhar Marathe Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Pankaj Rajmachikar Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-04-2020 Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Bashir Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 Nilesh Shriniwas Baswant Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 Sarva Hara Jan Andolan through Ulka Mahajan & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-03-2020 Azam Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Shankar Bhintade High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shankar Khandu Thombare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Kondiba Bahiru Thambare High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Manglam Roongta & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Superintending Engineer, Admn. Versus M/.Pranavditya Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through – PI of Chavani Police Station, Malegaon, District - Nasik) Versus Dr. Baban Lahanu Gangurde & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
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
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 CEAT Limited (formerly known as Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 Chirag Sundarlal Gupta Versus The State of Maharashtra (through Kurar Village Police Station High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Ishwar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Sayyad Azim Sayyad Mnazur & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Mohd. Nazir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Nivrutti Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Lahu Bhausaheb Sonwane Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tirathsing Labana @ Punjabi Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court, A.S. Mumbai) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Hasina Siraj Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra Secretary through Department of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Sanjay Devaji Ramteke Versus The State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-03-2020 Manohar Bhimraoji Mahalle & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-03-2020 Dr. Nishigandha Ramchandra Naik Versus State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Devyani Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-03-2020 Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Proprietor of M/s. Elegant Constructions Versus State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Balaso Gulab Pendhari & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shaikh Jabbarlal Mohamad High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Anant Dattatraya Pashilkar High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Mohammed Aslam Azad Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Gopal Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-03-2020 Kishor Laxman Lonari, Convict No. C/52 Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Prison – 3, State of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-03-2020 Dr. Anil D. Garje Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Higher & Technical Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Haseena Babu Sanadi @ Haseena Rasul Tadwal Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Justice & Special Assistance Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Ravindra Manik Shinde & Another Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Radhabai Gabaji Rokade Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-03-2020 Priyanka Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Principle Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-03-2020 Dadarao & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-03-2020 Sainath Annasaheb Waghchaure & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
02-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Daulu Patil & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay


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