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



Vimal & Others v/s Santosh & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- SANTOSH LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999GJ1990PLC014671

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

    Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 24825, 24704 of 2013

    Decided On, 22 July 2019

    At, High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

    For the Appearing Parties: Sanjay S. Katageri, B. Sharanabasava, G.N. Raichur, Advocates.



Judgment Text


1. The owner of the vehicle and the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.2113 of 2011 by the Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khanapur (fort short the Tribunal ) have filed these appeals.

2. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that 02.07.2010 at about 6.30 p.m. in the public place namely on Kacha road, leading to water tank and the lands of various persons, lying towards eastern side of NH-4A, near Hebbal, the first respondent/the driver of the Tractor and Trailer bearing registration numbers KA-25/4039 and KA-25/T-267 respectively, took the same reverse in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely Ramchandra, causing his death. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) claiming compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. In response to the notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 filed written statement which was adopted by the respondent No.1 they have admitted the accident, death of deceased-Ramchandra due to the accidental injuries. They also admitted that respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the same have been insured with respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has filed written statement, he has admitted issuance of insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle and he has denied all other allegations made in the claim petition. He further contended that the alleged accident took place in a private land and police did not file charge-sheet for the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C. hence, there is no rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver in a public place. Therefore, the petition be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties Tribunal framed issues. In support of their claim petition, the claimant -petitioner No.1 was examined as PW-1 and got marked ten documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P- 10. There is no evidence on behalf of the respondents either oral or documentary.

5. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned Judgment awarding compensation amount of Rs.3,37,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 20.09.2011 till realization, which shall be deposited within one month from the date of the order. The claim petition was dismissed against respondent Nos.1 and 3 and respondent No.2-owner of the offending vehicle was ordered to deposit the compensation amount.

6. The appellant-owner of the offending vehicle being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award has filed appeal in M.F.A.No.24704 of 2013 on the ground that saddling the liability on the owner is illegal on the facts and evidence in the case and that the Tribunal has erroneously saddled liability on him. The liability ought to have been fastened against the insurer. It is proved that the accident occurred in the public place and the police have filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C and the Criminal Court has taken cognizance of the said offence. The Tribunal has not considered the meaning of public place as per Section 2(34) of the Act. The Tribunal is not justified in holding that the place of the accident is a private land as there was no restriction or prohibition for the public to have a right of access to the said land. It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effecting driving licence. The offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurer and therefore the liability has to be saddled against the insurer.

7. The claimants being dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and have filed M.F.A.No.24825 of 2013 seeking enhancement of the compensation and also to fasten the liability on the Insurance Company.

8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

9. A short question which arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the owner of the offending vehicle has made out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him and to saddle the liability against the insurer and whether the claimants have made out grounds for enhancement of compensation ?

10. The learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle vehemently submitted that the place where the accident occurred has to be construed as a public place as provided under Section 2(34) of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that admittedly in the present case the police have filed the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. along with other offences and Criminal Court has taken the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. and therefore, it has to be held that the place of accident is a public place. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has not considered these aspects, especially the filing of the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. which is omitted by the Trial Court by referring the offence punishable under Section 304A of I.P.C. alone and thereby has erroneously come to the conclusion that the place of the accident is not a public place and that it is a private property.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants soon has relied on the Judgment of division bench of this Court in MFA.No.20675 of 2013 connected with MFA.No.21192 of 2013 in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt.Rajani W/o. Harigopal Mandelia, decided on 10.12.2015.

12. As per the complaint Ex.P-3 and spot panchanama at Ex.P-3 the accident occurred in Sy.No. 2/7 of Nandagad village. It is alleged that when the deceased was talking with Narayana Raut and Nagu Narayan Kesarekar the driver of the Tractor and Trailer drove the same in a reverse and dashed against the deceased thereby caused his death. Claimant No.1 was examined as PW-1, admittedly she is not eyewitness to the accident, she has denied that the accident occurred in the land. It is very much necessary to refer the contention of the insurer in paragraph No.15 of the written statement which reads as follows :

15. It is submitted that the claim petition of the petitioners is not maintainable as the alleged accident is taken place on the private land as can be seen from the police records. To maintain the petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act the accident should occur in public place and there should be necessarily rash and negligent driving of the driver, but in this case there is no rash and negligent driving of the accused/driver of the alleged tractor and trailer and the police have also not filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. Hence in the absence of offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. it clearly shows that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle and the accident has also taken place on the private land i.e., R.S.No.2/7 of Nandagad village. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners against this respondent No.2 Insurance Company is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed and the same be kindly dismissed.

Therefore, it is the specific case of the insurer that the police have not filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. and it clearly shows that the accident has not occurred in a public place and it took place in R.S.No.2/7 of Nandagad village. Admittedly, the insurer has not adduced any evidence in support of its contention.

13. On the other hand, the claimants have produced Ex.P-9 which is plea recorded by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.661 of 2010 against the driver of the offending Tractor, in which, it is clearly stated that accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of I.P.C. Ex.P-10 is the certified copy of the Judgment in the said Criminal Case in which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of I.P.C. Therefore, it is very much clear that the concerned police after investigation filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. and the accused/driver was tried for the said offence. However, the learned Member of the Tribunal referred in paragraph No.16 of the Judgment that the police have filed the charge-sheet only for the offence punishable under Section 304A of I.P.C. The Tribunal has not at all considered Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 in which the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C. is specifically mentioned. The reference to Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 becomes more relevant in view of the contention of respondent No.3 the insurer as contended in paragraph No.15 of his written statement extracted above. Therefore, the contention of the insurer was that as the police have not filed charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. the accident did not occur in the public place. On the other hand, Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 are sufficient to show that the police have invoked the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C and charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No.1 for the said offence and he was tried for the said offence. Therefore, the contention of the insurer as pleaded in paragraph No.15 of the written statement referred supra cannot be accepted.

14. The learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle has relied on the Judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., stated supra in that case the division bench of this Court considered the similar facts and circumstances. The interpretation of Section 2(34) of the Act is involved in the said case. The facts in the said case are also similar to the case in hand, in that case accident had occurred in coal field yard at Grasim Industry, Kumarapattana. The insurer contended in that case also that the accident had occurred in a private place and not in a public place. Therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. Further, in the said case, the police had not filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. The same arguments were advanced before the division bench in the said case and the controversy between the parties was as to whether the place of accident in question is a public place or not Section 2(34) of the Act provides definition of the public place which reads as under :

(34) public place means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage;

The division bench of this Court relied on the Judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of M/s.M.K.Bhaukim v. Sukura Singh & Ors, (2011) AIR Orissa 144 in which the Orissa High Court has held as under :

Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), Ss. 2(34), 149-Public place-What is-All places where members of public have an access whether as of right or controlled-Would be covered under definition of public place - Accident took place on land abutting public road to which public had easy access-Land does not cease to be a public place merely because it was recorded in name of private individual-Land where accident took place was public place-Insurer liable to pay compensation.

Words and Phrases Expressions Right of access and access as of right - Distinction.

The definition of public place under M.V.Act, is, wide enough to include any place which members of public use and to which they have a right of access. The rights of access may be permissive, limited, restricted or regulated by oral or written permission, by tickets, passes or badges or on payment of fee. The use may be restricted generally or to particular purpose or purpose. What is necessary is that place must be accessible to members of public and be available for their use, enjoyment, avocation or other purpose.

In the said case further it is held as follows :

8. The definition of public place under the M.V.Act is, therefore, wide enough to include any place which members of public use and to which they have a right of access. The right of access may be permissive, limited, restricted or regulated by oral or written permission, by tickets, passes or badges or on payment of fee. The use may be restricted generally or to particular purpose or purposes. What is necessary is that the place must be accessible to the members of public and be available for their use, enjoyment, avocation or other purpose.

15. The division bench relying on the said decision and considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that the place of accident in the said case being coal yard situated inside the factory and as per the company public can go to the said spot with permission, it was held that it is a public place though it is coal yard belonging to the private company. Coming to the facts of the present case, absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that the place of the accident had no access to the public or that there was any prohibition for entry of the public to the said land. It is also relevant to mention that the said land is situated by the side of the highway as can be seen from Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4. The definition of public place under Section 2(34) of the Act referred above goes to show that any place whether it is a thoroughfare or not to whether the public have a right of access and includes any place or stand etc., is a public place. Therefore, in the present case, the place in which the accident occurred had access to the public and even the access to the public is not restricted or prohibited.

16. On the other hand, in the Judgment stated supra the entry to the place of accident was restricted and only with permission of the company authorities one could enter the said premises. However in the present case, it is a open land to which the entry of any person is not restricted and therefore, the said place is accessible to the public. Under these circumstances, the facts and circumstances of the case relying on the Judgment of this Court stated supra and also relying on the Judgment in the case of M/s. M.K.Bhaukim s stated supra, it is held that the place of accident in the present case squarely falls within the definition under Section 2(34) of the Act and it is a public place. Therefore, the contention of the insurer that the accident occurred in a private land and as such he is not liable to pay compensation cannot be accepted. Under these circumstances, the findings recorded by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition against the insurer is liable to be set aside. The claim petition has to be allowed against the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle deserves to be allowed.

17. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month which is on the lower side and the same may be enhanced and that the Tribunal has deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses. The claimants are wife and sons of the deceased, therefore 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The learned counsel also further submitted that 10% of the income of the deceased has to be added towards future prospects.

18. The claimants have contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was an agriculturist as well as he was doing bricks manufacturing work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and however they have not produced any positive evidence to prove the income. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Considering the age and occupation of the deceased and year of accident namely 2010 and in view of the guidelines provided for settlement of cases in Lok-Adalat, it is just and necessary to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.5,500/- per month in order to award compensation. It is also necessary to add 10% of the income towards future prospects which comes to Rs.5,500/- + 10% i.e., Rs.550/- = Rs.6,050/- out of which 1/3rd has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses as there are three claimants 1/3rd of the amount comes to Rs.2,016/-, thereby the remaining income of the deceased comes to (Rs.6,050/- - Rs.2,016/-)= Rs.4,034/- which has to be multiplied b

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

y 12 and 11 the proper multiplier considering the age of the deceased. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation amount of (Rs.4,034/- X 12 X 11 =Rs.5,32,488/-) Rs.5,32,488/- towards loss of dependency. Further, the claimants are entitled for compensation amount of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads. The claimant Nos.2 and 3 being major sons of the deceased they are not entitled for compensation towards loss of love and affection. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.6,02,488/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,37,000/-. The point for consideration in these appeals is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following : ORDER The appeal in M.F.A.No.24704 of 2013 filed by the owner of the offending vehicle is allowed and the Judgment and Award dated 18.09.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.2113 of 2011 by the Member, M.A.C.T., Khanapur so for as dismissing the claim petition against the 3rd respondent-Insurer and saddling the liability against the respondent No.2-Owner of the offending vehicle is set aside. The claim petition is allowed against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and respondent No.3-Insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from this day. The amount in deposit made (in MFA.No.24704 of 2013) by the appellant-respondent No.2 shall be refunded to the appellant-respondent No.2. The appeal in M.F.A.No.24825 of 2013 is allowed in part. The claimants are awarded compensation amount of Rs.6,02,488/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The order in respect of apportionment, deposit and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

09-09-2020 Santosh @ Sada Mahadev Chand Rakodi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
05-08-2020 Sunny @ Santosh Dharmu Bhosale (Prisoner No.c/6384, Kolhapur Central Prison) Versus The State of Maharashtra (through Khandala Police Station, District – Satara) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-08-2020 Santosh Kumar Garg (Deceased) Versus U.P. Housing & Development Board, U.P. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-06-2020 Santosh Singh Gehlot Versus State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department of Medical & Health, Government of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
24-06-2020 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
22-05-2020 Santosh Kumar Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-05-2020 For the Applicant: Santosh Yadav, Advocate. For the Respondents: G.A. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-05-2020 Santosh & Another Versus The State of Karnataka by P.S. Besagaraghalli, Represented by State Public Prosecutor Advocate General's Office High Court of Karnataka
18-03-2020 Dr. Santosh Shetty V/S Ameeta Shetty High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Vimal Versus Abbott healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
19-02-2020 Rakesh Agarwal Versus Santosh Kumar Gangwar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-02-2020 Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Versus The State of Bihar Supreme Court of India
12-02-2020 Dr. Santosh Revankar Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-02-2020 Piyush Adesara & Others Versus Santosh Kumar Verma High Court of Jharkhand
30-01-2020 Aarati Santosh Shetty Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-01-2020 Santosh Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 Dr. Santosh Kumar Baishya & Others Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Indian Council of Agriculture Research, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
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
24-01-2020 Santosh Versus The District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Buldhana, Tahsil & District Buldhana & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-01-2020 Santosh & Another Versus Parasvnath Developers Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
02-01-2020 Union Bank of India V/S Santosh Dresses and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna
13-12-2019 Mahadev Vithal Supnur & Another Versus Santosh Bhausaheb Shinde & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-12-2019 Santosh Sharma Versus Vishnu Maheswari & Others Supreme Court of India
03-12-2019 Anwar Noormohammed Pirani Versus Santosh Gajanan Naskulwar In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
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 Santosh Machindra Mulik Versus Mohini Mithu Choudhari High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-11-2019 Santosh Chaturvedi Versus Kailash Chandra & Another Supreme Court of India
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
06-11-2019 The State of Maharashtra Versus Santosh Sadanand Chavan & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-11-2019 Vimal Singh Versus The State of Goa, through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
25-10-2019 M/s. Sangeetha Traders Represented by its Partner Santosh Kumar Lath, Alwarpet Versus T.A. Shanmugham, Proprietor, M/s. Sai Packaging Industries, Ambattur, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-10-2019 Santosh Jumar Jha Versus State Of Jharkhand & Another High Court of Jharkhand
22-10-2019 Santosh @ Tidke Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-10-2019 Santosh Vitthal Awate Versus Nagesh Navnath Awate & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-10-2019 Santosh Vitthal Awate Versus Nagesh Navnath Awate & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-10-2019 The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector & Others Versus Santosh Vishnu Lonkar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-10-2019 Santosh Kumar Versus Delhi Jal Board High Court of Delhi
09-10-2019 Santosh Kumar Versus State of Karnataka & Another High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2019 Santosh Basfore Versus The Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
25-09-2019 Kalpana Rajendra Kothari & Others Versus Santosh Arvind Jangam & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-09-2019 Santosh Kumar Versus M/s. Bharti Infratel Limited & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
26-08-2019 Santosh Kumar Patra Versus State of Orissa High Court of Orissa
16-08-2019 Sangeeta Santosh Kadam Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Senior Inspector of Police & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-08-2019 Santosh Gaurav Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
29-07-2019 Santosh Madanlal Agrawal Versus Bhagwat Ragho Karad & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
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
04-07-2019 Santosh Kumar Dwivedi & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-07-2019 For the Appellant: Yogesh Agarwal, Gulrez Khan, J.H. Khan, Manish Goyal, W.H. Khan, Advocates. For the Respondent: A.K. Sachan, A.N. Bhargava, Rakesh Pande, Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-07-2019 Santosh Kumar Kejriwal Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2019 Girdhar Brijmohan Maru Versus Vimal Lalchand Mutha & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
10-06-2019 Santosh Desai Versus State of Goa In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-05-2019 Jaram Singh Versus Santosh & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
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
10-05-2019 Govinda @ V. Santosh Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
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
26-03-2019 Santosh Kumar Versus State of U.P Thru Secy Madhyamik & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-03-2019 Vimal & Another Versus Deepak & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
13-03-2019 Siddhi Santosh Chaulkar Versus Aryan Education Society & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2019 Vimal Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
08-03-2019 Santosh Kumar Trivedi Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-03-2019 Santosh Bhaskar Derle Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-02-2019 Santosh Das Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
19-02-2019 Santosh Kumar Bagla Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
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
11-02-2019 Santosh Kumar Versus State of Bihar & Another Supreme Court of India
08-02-2019 Santosh Naik @ Santosha & Another Versus State, By the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sandur Police Station, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
06-02-2019 Ashok Kumar & Others Versus Santosh Kumar & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-02-2019 Santosh Machhindra Thite Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-01-2019 Santosh Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
25-01-2019 Dr. Santosh Chandrashekar Shetty Versus Ameeta Santosh Shetty & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-01-2019 Santosh Versus The State of Maharashtra, through Food Inspector, Food & Drugs Administration In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
21-01-2019 Bhonagiri Santosh Vesus State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
16-01-2019 Vimal Tiwari Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-01-2019 Yallappa Versus M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., R/By its Authorised Signatory & Power of Attorney Holder Santosh High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
10-01-2019 Shachi Mahajan & Another Versus Santosh Mahajan & Another High Court of Delhi
09-01-2019 Santosh Maruti Mane Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-01-2019 M/s. Kamal Bhatta Company Versus Santosh & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
07-01-2019 Santosh Kumar Choudhary & Others Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-01-2019 Santosh Mahobiya Versus Mahendra Tamboli High Court of Chhattisgarh
20-12-2018 Santosh Sagar Versus The State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-12-2018 Maharashtra Public Service Commission Versus Sunil Santosh Pawar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-12-2018 Vimal Chaudhary Versus Manjeet Singh High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
03-12-2018 Santosh Kumari (Since Deceased) Through LRS Versus Fortis Escorts Hospital & Others Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
26-11-2018 Vimal Jain Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
19-11-2018 Santosh Kumar Versus State High Court of Delhi
16-11-2018 Santosh @ Santosh Kumar Versus State of Kerala Supreme Court of India
13-11-2018 Vimal Kumar Soni Versus CPIO, Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya Amreli, Amreli Central Information Commission
02-11-2018 Kailash & Another Versus Santosh & Another Supreme Court of India
01-11-2018 Vimal Chandrunwal Versus Brilliant Alloys P. Ltd. & Others National Company Law Tribunal Chennai
30-10-2018 Santosh Boobna Son of Bhagwati Versus Ramavtar Kandoi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
23-10-2018 Santosh Arjun Chavan & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
11-10-2018 Subhas Kumar Prajapati & Others Versus Santosh Kumar Sah West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
11-10-2018 Santosh Singh Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
06-10-2018 Santosh Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-10-2018 Chief Post Master, Tehsil & District-Balaghat (M.P.) Versus Vimal Bothra Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
18-09-2018 Santosh Kanwar Versus Union of India High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
12-09-2018 Brijesh Kumar Versus Santosh Kumar Singh High Court of Delhi