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



Vimal Kumar Soni v/s CPIO, Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya Amreli, Amreli


Company & Directors' Information:- VIMAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24231DL1999PTC099648

Company & Directors' Information:- VIMAL KUMAR & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65921MP1948PTC000488

    Second Appeal No. CIC/NAVVS/A/2017/154926-BJ

    Decided On, 13 November 2018

    At, Central Information Commission

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. BIMAL JULKA
    By, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

    For the Appellant: Vimal Kumar Soni, through VC. For the Respondent: C.K. Thakur, Principal I/C, D.P. Tayade, PGT English through VC.



Judgment Text

Facts

1. The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of staff quarters of Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, details of total number of staff quarters as also the number of allotted and unallotted staff quarters in the month of February etc.

2. The CPIO, vide letter dated 08.05.2017 provided a response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

3. The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that complete and correct information had not been received. It was also alleged that he had been forced to vacate the staff quarter without giving him a prior notice. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that a suitable reply had been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 08.05.2017. The Commission however noted that the First Appeal of the Appellant was not disposed off by the Respondent Public Authority. On being queried by the Commission whether the details of the staff quarters were available in the public domain, the Respondent replied in the negative.

4. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 04.11.2018 wherein while explaining the background of his case alleged that the CPIO had provided him incomplete and wrong information. It was further submitted that he had not received any letter for vacating the quarter.

5. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 06.11.2018 wherein it was submitted that the information had already been given to the Complainant about this matter. It was further submitted that the then Principal Mr. J. Prakash's action taken report had also been forwarded by Mr. P.G. Kantale vide letter dated 12.07.2017. The copy of the same was enclosed for the ready reference.

6. The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:

"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."

7. Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:

"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"

8. In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:

35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."

9. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:

6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:

"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."

This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."

7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."

10. The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suomotu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:

"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."

12. The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:

"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."

13. Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:

"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:

A. Publish inter alia:

i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;

ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;

iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;

iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;

v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].

B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."

14. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Sayyed Education Society v. State of Maharashtra, WP 1305/2011 dated 12.02.2014 had held that public authorities are under a statutory obligation to maintain records and disseminate as per the provisions of the Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court in this respect, held as under:

"Needless to state that as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 14 in the case of CBSE and Another (supra), Public Authorities are under an obligation to maintain records and disseminate the information in the manner provided under Section 4 of the RTI act. The submission of the petitioner that it is an onerous task to supply documents, therefore is required to be rejected. The Law mandates preserving of documents, supplying copies thereof to the applicant, in our view, cannot be said to be an onerous task."

15. Above all the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. v. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under:

"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."

16. The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012, Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna v. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal v. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 of 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 of 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 of 2012 had held as under:

"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."

18. Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:

"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."

19. Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT v. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:

6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.

7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme. 20. A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat v. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender v. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2016. DECISION: 21. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum. 22. The Commission however instructs the Respondent to suo motu disclose under Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005, the complete details of the staff quarters available with them including the description of the occupants from the date of occupancy etc. on its website within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order in the larger public interest. 23. The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities. 24. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

04-03-2020 Vimal Versus Abbott healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
29-01-2020 Vimal Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary/Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2019 Dr. Vimal Vincent Versus Revenue Division Officer/Sub Collector, Revenue Divisional Office, Irijalakuda, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
15-11-2019 The Manager, Vimal Jyothi Engineering College, Kannur & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
04-11-2019 Vimal Singh Versus The State of Goa, through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
22-07-2019 Vimal & Others Versus Santosh & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
17-07-2019 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Manager (Legal Hub) Versus Vimal Babasaheb Hulgunde & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-06-2019 Girdhar Brijmohan Maru Versus Vimal Lalchand Mutha & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
28-05-2019 Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented By Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus C.A. Vimal & Others High Court of Kerala
28-05-2019 Vinod Kumar Vimal Versus The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-04-2019 Vimal Marwah Versus Logix Infratech Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-04-2019 V. Vimal Versus The District Collector, Cuddalore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2019 Vimal & Another Versus Deepak & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
13-03-2019 Vimal Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
12-02-2019 Vimal Nayan & Others Versus The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Headquarters Preventive Unit, Chennai North Commissionerate, Nungambakkam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-01-2019 Vimal Tiwari Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-12-2018 Vimal Chaudhary Versus Manjeet Singh High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
26-11-2018 Vimal Jain Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
01-11-2018 Vimal Chandrunwal Versus Brilliant Alloys P. Ltd. & Others National Company Law Tribunal Chennai
17-10-2018 Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd. & Another Versus Gomabai Netralaya, Neemuch Through Trusty, Vimal Goyal & Others Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
04-10-2018 Chief Post Master, Tehsil & District-Balaghat (M.P.) Versus Vimal Bothra Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
14-08-2018 Vimal Arackal Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kannamali Police Station & Another High Court of Kerala
02-07-2018 Fr. Thomas Melvettath, Chairman, Vimal Jyothi Engineering College, Kannur District Versus The All India Council for Technical Education, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasaan Kunju, Represented By Its Member Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
07-02-2018 Vimal Kumar Verma Versus Kavita Verma & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
22-11-2017 T. Vimal Viswanath Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-11-2017 Vimal Flexsol Limited and Others V/S Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ahmadabad Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
21-09-2017 Vimal Gupta Versus Executive Engineer, Dakshinanchal Electricity Dist. Nigam High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-09-2017 Navodaya Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Others Versus Vimal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-05-2017 Vimal & Another Versus Judge, Accidental Claims Tribunal, Churu High Court of Rajasthan
19-04-2017 Firm Radha Krishna Vimal Kumar Ltd. Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-04-2017 State of Maharashtra Versus Vimal & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-03-2017 Vimal Dairy Limited Versus Kaira Dist. Co. Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
02-03-2017 Vimal Razdan & Another Versus State of Rajasthan & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
07-12-2016 Vimal Chandok Versus Shiv Sharan Dass & Another High Court of Delhi
20-09-2016 Dr. Shrikant V. Mukewar Versus Vimal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2016 Vimal Bhatnagar Versus State of Rajasthan & Another High Court of Rajasthan
17-08-2016 Shri Vimal Kishor Shah & Others Versus Jayesh Dinesh Shah & Others Supreme Court of India
12-08-2016 Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board & Another Versus Vimal Jyothi Charitable Society Manikuni, Sultahn Bathery Po. Rep by its Treasure, Adoration Concent, Sulthan Bathery Amsom Desom Wayanad Kerala National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2016 Vimal Singh Chaudhary Versus The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Others High Court of Delhi
22-07-2016 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Vimal Yashwant Kamble & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-06-2016 Vimal Alias Thomas Versus State of Kerala, Represented By Its Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
17-06-2016 V. Vimal Versus The District Collector, Cuddalore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-04-2016 M/s. Church of South India Trust Association ? Medak Diocese, rep. by its Treasurer and General Power of Attorney Holder, Dr. B. Vimal Sukumar & Another Versus $ The Medical Council of India, rep. by its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
13-04-2016 Puda Versus Vimal Opal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-04-2016 Vimal Maruti Burute & Another Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-01-2016 Jivana Devi Yogendra Nath Adhar & Another Versus Vimal Kumar Dayaram Makane(Roy) & Another Supreme Court of India
07-01-2016 In Re: Vimal Singh Rajput Versus Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Competition Commission of India
21-12-2015 Vimal & Others Versus Sau Dnyandevi Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
11-09-2015 CIT Versus Vimal Chand Surana High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
02-09-2015 Ram Khilauni Versus Vimal Kumar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-09-2015 Sheoji Ram Choudhary Versus Vimal Kumar @ Vimlesh Kumar High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
19-08-2015 The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Public Health Department & Others Versus Dr. Vimal Dagdu Shinde & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-07-2015 Vimal Bhatia Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan
09-07-2015 Vimal Chandra Pandey Versus Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
03-07-2015 N. Edwin Raj & Others Versus W. Merin Vimal Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-05-2015 Vimal Kumar Suri & Others Versus Chanchal Bhaseen & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
05-05-2015 Vimal Haribhau Naik Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its additional Principal Secretary (Forest), Department of Revenue & Forest & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-03-2015 Vimal Pratap Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-03-2015 Vimal R. Ambani Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2015 Vimal Kumar Sharma Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
02-02-2015 Mohit Kumar Versus Vimal Dhasmana & Another High Court of Delhi
13-01-2015 Vimal Versus The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-01-2015 The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary & Others Versus Vimal Prakash & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-01-2015 Vimal Oil & Foods Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-8, Ahmedabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad
06-01-2015 Vimal Versus State of Kerala rep. by its Public Prosecutor & Others High Court of Kerala
05-01-2015 Paramananad Vimal Versus Union of India High Court of Jharkhand
05-11-2014 Vimal Kumar Gupta Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-10-2014 Vimal Kumar Yadav Versus Mukesh Tiwari & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-10-2014 Vimal Kumar Yadav V/S Mukesh Tiwari and Others. High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur
08-09-2014 The Southern Railway, Rep. by its General Manager & Another Versus Vimal M. Mehta National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2014 Amarjeet Singh Versus Vimal Taneja & Another High Court of Delhi
30-07-2014 Hitendra Jain Versus Vimal Kumar Tripathi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
17-07-2014 Vimal Mehra Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
10-07-2014 Vimal Kumar Patni Versus The State of Jharkhand & Another High Court of Jharkhand
02-07-2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Vimal Chand Jain High Court of Andhra Pradesh
26-06-2014 Ashok Kumar Versus Vimal Kumar & Others High Court of Rajasthan
29-04-2014 Vimal Kumar Baba, (H.P.) Versus Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
22-04-2014 Punjab National Bank Versus Vimal Pratapsingh Rathod Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
15-04-2014 Vimal Saxena Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-04-2014 The Collector, Amravati Camp & Another Versus Sau. Vimal Devidas Kale In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-01-2014 Rajasthan Housing Board Through its President Jyoti Nagar Jaipur, Rajasthan Versus Vimal Chand Jain National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-01-2014 Municipal Council, Bhandara, through its Chief Officer Versus Vimal widow of Sadaram Kodape In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
18-12-2013 M/s. Kusum Enterprises & Others Versus Vimal Kochhar & Another High Court of Delhi
12-12-2013 Purushottam Das Maheshwari Versus Vimal Singh Bapna & Another High Court of Rajasthan
29-11-2013 Mohan Versus Vimal In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-11-2013 Vimal Kumar Goyal Versus The New India Assurance Company Ltd. High Court of Delhi
23-09-2013 M/s. Vimal Telektronix Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Tata Telecom Ltd. High Court of Delhi
12-09-2013 R. Joseph Vimal Sudhakar Versus The Zonal Manager, L.I.C. of India, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-08-2013 Vimal Powerloom Versus Ravi Agency & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-07-2013 Union of India Versus Vimal Bhai & Others Supreme Court of India
10-06-2013 Vimal Builders Versus Nand Kumar Anant Vaity & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-05-2013 Sunita Devi & Others Versus Vimal Dwivedi & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-05-2013 Smt. Vimal Raosaheb Chougule Post-Ashta Versus Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-05-2013 Vimal Kanwar & Others Versus Kishore Dan & Others Supreme Court of India
30-01-2013 P.S. Vimal Versus UOI & Others High Court of Delhi
21-01-2013 Smt. Vimal Narayan Kabre & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
02-01-2013 Jagmohan Das Khandelwal Versus Vimal Kumar Surana High Court of Madhya Pradesh
30-10-2012 Minor Vimal Kumar Versus Venktesan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-10-2012 Vimal Kishore Dubey @ Chhotey Versus State Of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-09-2012 K. Vimal Chand Bora & Another Versus The Inspector General of Registration & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras