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



Vinod Madan Lal Nawandhar v/s Vidisha Garg & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- GARG CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999PB1998PLC021355

Company & Directors' Information:- MADAN & COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TN1981PLC008556

Company & Directors' Information:- D P GARG AND COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909DL1998PTC094444

Company & Directors' Information:- GARG AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51420DL1997PTC088869

Company & Directors' Information:- T GARG & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1986PTC040320

Company & Directors' Information:- GARG (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24231UP1973PTC003754

Company & Directors' Information:- B K VINOD & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1997PTC087123

Company & Directors' Information:- C. LAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2012PLC046499

Company & Directors' Information:- VINOD PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909GJ1947PTC000819

Company & Directors' Information:- T MADAN & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1950PTC018749

Company & Directors' Information:- VINOD AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1949PTC007864

Company & Directors' Information:- GARG AND CO PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909PB1946PTC000969

    Civil Revision Petition No. 18 of 2019

    Decided On, 16 September 2019

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

    For the Appearing Parties: Varun Goswami, Sahil Agarwal, S.S. Dahiya, Advocates.



Judgment Text


C.R.P. 18/2019 & CM APPL.3398/2019 (stay)

Petitioner impugns order dated 26.09.2018, whereby, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Suit filed by the respondent was barred on the principles of issue estoppel, res judicata order II Rule 2 CPC and also limitation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent had earlier filed a Suit in the year 1993 seeking a declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction with regard to the same shares with respect to which the present Suit has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent, who is a bonafide purchaser of the shares, was not a party to the suit filed by the petitioner against his purchasers and as such could not take the defence.

5. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the year 1993 with the following prayer:-

"(a) To pass a decree of declaration declaring the plaintiff a owner and holder of all the 300 equity shares bearing certificates Nos. 102052- 57, distinctive Nos. 11341914- 11342213, including benefits therefore, if any, declared or to be declared by defendant No.l in future, issued by M/s Hero Honda Motors Limited (Defendant No.l)

(b) To pass a declaration of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant No.l, its servants, agents, attorney, authorized representatives, etc. from proceeding/ processing and / or registering the transfer of any of the above mentioned 300 shares as detailed in para 1 of the plaint without due process of law and also without the consent of the plaintiff;

(c) To pass a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant No.l to issue duplicate share certificates in respect of the above mentioned 300 shares as detailed in para 1 of the plaint, including the benefits of dividends, rights and bonus thereof, if any, declared after 29.10.1990, or to be declared in future by the defendant No.l.

(d) To grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants."

6. Said suit was dismissed by a judgment dated 19.10.2013 holding that the respondent had clearly concealed the material facts regarding the decree already having been passed by a competent Court with regard to the shares in question in favour of the present petitioner.

7. Said judgment was taken up in appeal by the respondent and the Appellate Court, by order dated 18.08.2015, specifically held as under:-

"14. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the plaintiff has failed to discharge her initial burden to show that shares were purchased by her from the defendant no. 3 i.e. Garg Shares Trading Company vide bill no. 1695 dated 29.10.1990 by making payment vide cheque no. 991108 dated 07.10.1990. Accordingly, there is no need to proceed further whether the shares were fraudulently transferred or not in favour of the defendants no. 4 and 5 or whether there are concealment of material fact on behalf of the appellant. The appellant has failed to prove his case on merits as well. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed without costs in view of the reasons given above in addition to the reasons given by Ld. trial court."

8. Thereafter the respondent filed a Regular Second Appeal before this Court and by judgment dated 30.11.2015, the Court held as under:-

11. On the other hand, defendant no.4, admittedly, had a decree passed by a competent civil court in his favour in respect of the same shares upon which the plaintiff had laid a claim. Even after the plaintiff learnt of the said decree, she did not take any steps to assail the same. The judgment and decree passed by the civil court could not have been nullified by filing another suit when no declaration was sought in respect of the said judgment and decree on the ground that the same was obtained fraudulently. Thus, the final decision of the First Appellate Court is missing the appeal of the appellant appears to be correct and does not call for interference."

9. Matter was once again challenged by the respondent by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which petition was dismissed by order dated 08.04.2016.

10. Thereafter the subject suit has been filed with the following prayer:

"(a) To direct defendant No.l to provide clear and free title of these 300 shares (or equivalent thereof) in the name of plaintiff.

(b) To direct defendant No.2 not to give these 300 shares (certificates No.102052-57, distinctive Nos.11341914-11342213), including benefits (Dividends, Rights, Bonuses etc. w.e.f 29.10.1990) thereon, if any, declared or to be declared by defendant No.2 in future, issued by defendant No.2 M/s Hero Honda Motors Limited (Now Hero Moto Corp Ltd) to any other claimant till final decision of the court."

11. Perusal of the prayer of the subject Suit clearly shows that the facts as well as the questions in issue in the second suit filed by the respondent, i.e., the subject suit as also the first suit are identical and the issues arising in the second Suit are identical to the issues that arose in the first Suit, which Suit was dismissed after a full-fledged trial and title to the shares was held to be that of the petitioner and not of the respondent/Plaintiff. Appeals against the said judgment were dismissed upto the Supreme Court.

12. Clearly the second Suit is barred by the principle of issue estoppel as also res judicata as laid down in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

13. The Supreme Court in Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, (1999) 5 SCC 590 held as under:

"26. It is settled law that the principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in some essential particulars. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are "cause of action estoppel" and "issue estoppel". These two terms are of common law origin. Again, once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that the issue was wrongly determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to, as noted above, an issue estoppel. It operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit in which the issue had been determined. It also operates in subsequent suits between the same parties in which the same issue arises. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains provisions of res judicata but these are not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata. Legal principles of estoppel and res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before administrative authorities as they are based on public policy and justice.

27. As to what is issue estoppel was considered by this Court in Gopal Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, (1970) 2 SCC 905 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 584] . This case arose out of criminal prosecution; the accused was tried on a charge under Section 409 IPC for having committed criminal breach of trust for Rs 27,800 during the period between 31-1-1960 to 30-11-1960, when he was acting as cashier in the Public Works Department of the State. The accused contended that he had been put up on a trial in a previous case under Section 409 IPC for having committed criminal breach of trust with respect to certain amounts during the period 8-12-1960 to 17-8- 1961 and in that case, the High Court had acquitted him holding that he was not in charge of the cash. The point of issue estoppel was, thus, raised by the accused. The trial court held that the aforesaid finding of the High Court could not operate as res judicata. The High Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. In this Court, it was contended that substantially it was the same issue that was tried during the earlier trial and if the accused was not the cashier from 8-12-1960 to 11-8-1961, he could not be held to be the cashier from 31-1-1960 to 11- 11-1960. The accused contended that the defence in both the cases was identical and the evidence also almost the same. This Court observed as under: (SCC p. 907, para 7)

"7. In our opinion, the High Court came to the correct conclusion. The basic principle underlying the rule of issue estoppel is that the same issue of fact and law must have been determined in the previous litigation. The question then arises: Was it the same issue of fact which was determined in the earlier case? A person may be acting as a cashier at one period and may not be acting as a cashier at another period, especially as in this case it was found that the appellant had never been appointed as a cashier. He was a temporary senior accounts clerk who was alleged to be doing the work of a cashier. If there is any likelihood of facts or conditions changing during the two periods which are under consideration then it is difficult to say that the prosecution would be bound by the finding in a previous trial on a similar issue of fact. It seems to us that the later finding must necessarily be in contradiction of the previous determination. There can be no such contradiction if the periods are different and the facts relating to the carrying on of the duties of a cashier are different."

***** ***** *****

31. Law on res judicata and estoppel is well understood in India and there are ample authoritative pronouncements by various courts on these subjects. As noted above, the plea of res judicata, though technical, is based on public policy in order to put an end to litigation. It is, however, different if an issue which had been decided in an earlier litigation again arises for determination between the same parties in a suit based on a fresh cause of action or where there is continuous cause of action. The parties then may not be bound by the determination made earlier if in the meanwhile, law has changed or has been interpreted differently by a higher forum. But that situation does not exist here. Principles of constructive res judicata apply with full force. It is the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. If we refer to Order XLVII of the Code (Explanation to Rule 1) review is not permissible on the ground that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment".

14. Even if assuming the relief prayed by the respondent in the second suit was slightly different from the relief claimed in the first suit, respondent is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC to file the subject Suit. A relief which could have been claimed in an earlier suit if omitted, is deemed to have been claimed and rejected.

15. The plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that the cause of action has arisen subsequently is not tenable in the eyes of law inasmuch as the respondent is seeking a relief in the subject Suit which directly emanates from the ownership of the shares i.e. entitlement to dividend, bonus or alternative shares to the original 300 shares which have been held to be belonging to the petitioner.

16. Clearly, the suit on its plain reading is barred by the principle of res judicata and is also barred under order II rule 2 CPC and as such, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.

17. The finding of the Trial Court that the issue is a mixed question of law and facts is erroneous inasmuch as there is no dispute on facts between the parties. In the earlier round i.e. the first suit filed by the respondent, it has been held upto the Supreme Court that the peti

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

tioner is the owner of the said 300 shares. Once it is held in favour of the petitioner that he is the owner of the said 300 shares in respect of which the first Suit was filed, all benefits, dividends, bonus or alternative share certificates, if issued, with regard to the said 300 shares, would also belong to the petitioner, who is the owner of the said shares. No disputed question of fact arises. The Trial Court has clearly erred in holding that the question raised by the petitioner is a mixed question of facts and law. 18. In view of the above, clearly the order of the Trial Court in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by the petitioner is not sustainable. 19. As noticed above, the second suit filed by the respondent is clearly barred on the principle of issue res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC. In my view, the Trial Court has erred in not allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by the petitioner. 20. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.09.2018 is set aside and the application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by the petitioner is allowed. The Suit filed by the respondent is held to be barred by law and accordingly, the plaint is rejected under Order VII rule 11(d) CPC. 21. Petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms. 22. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

13-10-2020 M/S. Device Driven (India) Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director, Indu Lakshmy Lal & Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
13-10-2020 K.M. Vinod Versus Food Inspector, Thodupuzha & Another High Court of Kerala
09-10-2020 M.K. Vinod Patel Versus The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-09-2020 Laddu Lal Mahto Versus Managing Director, Tata Motors Limited, Bihar & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others Versus Goverdhan Lal Soni & Another Supreme Court of India
08-09-2020 Murari Lal Versus State of U.P & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
31-08-2020 Arun Versus Vinod High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
28-08-2020 Chhotey Lal Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-08-2020 L. Madan @ Katu Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
18-08-2020 Lal Chand Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
13-08-2020 Vinod Ramnani & Another Versus Station House Officer C.B.I./A.C.B/Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
11-08-2020 Shankar Lal Yadav & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
06-08-2020 Ram Lal Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
04-08-2020 Santosh Kumar Garg (Deceased) Versus U.P. Housing & Development Board, U.P. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 Pyare Lal Versus State of Haryana Supreme Court of India
06-07-2020 Vinod Khanna Versus R.G. Stone Urology And Leproscopy Hospital & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-07-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of General Education, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus C.R. Vinod Kumar High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Sindhu. S. Lal Versus Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor & Others High Court of Kerala
29-06-2020 Chirag Madan Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
29-06-2020 Mohan Lal Jain Versus Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Another High Court of Delhi
26-06-2020 Amrut Lal @ Amrit Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-06-2020 M/s. Bharat Cement Distributors, Near Sabzi Mandi Proprietor & Another Versus R.C. Garg, J.E. (Civil) & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-06-2020 Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Instittue & Research Centre Through Administrator/Secretary & Others Versus Dharam Prakash Garg Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
23-06-2020 Munna Lal Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical & Health Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-06-2020 Vinod Mittal Versus State of H.P. & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
23-06-2020 Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Mumbai Versus Vinod Kumar Agrrawal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Jivan Lal Verma Versus Kishan Agrotek National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Vinayaka @ Vinod Versus State by Kamakshipalya Ps., Represented by S.P.P., Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-06-2020 Vinod Dua Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
11-06-2020 Moti Lal @ Moti Lal Patwa Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance through the Director, Enforcement Directorate, Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
05-06-2020 Subhash Chand Garg & Others Versus M/S H.K.S. Developers Private Ltd & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-06-2020 Latelraj Suryawanshi (Latelram Suryawanshi wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment) Versus Hori Lal Tamboli & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-05-2020 Aravapalli Krishna Murthy Versus Syed Lal Saheb Died & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 Diwari Lal & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
13-05-2020 Manish Madan Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
11-05-2020 Shiv Lal (Since Deceased) Versus Mohan Lal High Court of Punjab and Haryana
11-05-2020 Bina Garg & Another Versus Sushil Kumar & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-05-2020 Mohan Lal Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
30-04-2020 Jagdish Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-04-2020 Babu Lal Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
09-04-2020 Vinod Baruaar Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-03-2020 Babu Lal & Others Versus Para Devi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-03-2020 Neha Garg Versus Suryadeep Garg @ Suraj Garg High Court of Madhya Pradesh
17-03-2020 The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Maloth Vinod Versus State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-03-2020 Fiitjee Ltd., Through Its A.R Sh. Ashish Kr. Aggarwal, New Delhi & Another Versus Puneet Garg (Minor) Through His Natural Guardian His Father Sh. Anil Kuamr, Barnala National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 Ram Dulari & Another Versus Ram Lal & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
10-03-2020 Vinod & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
06-03-2020 Vinod Kedia Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Mumbai & Others SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
06-03-2020 Seema Garg & Others Versus Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), Govt. of India, Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-03-2020 Deepika Chopra Garg & Another Versus Nikhil Garg High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-03-2020 In The Matter of:D & I Taxcon Services Private Limited Versus Vinod Kumar Kothari, Liquidator of Nicco Corporation Limited National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
29-02-2020 Lal Chand Versus State of H.P. High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-02-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-02-2020 Abhishek Vinod Patil Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
27-02-2020 Aman Khattar Versus Jawahar Lal High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 M/s. Kiran Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Manohar Lal Ahuja, Uttar Pradesh Versus Yashpal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2020 Smriti Madan Kansagra Versus Perry Kansagra High Court of Delhi
21-02-2020 Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Versus State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 Devendra Kumar Garg Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-02-2020 M/s. Behari Lal & sons V/S The State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
18-02-2020 M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions (P) Ltd. Dwaraka, New Delhi, Registered Office Bhatinda, Punjab, Represented by Its Director, Vikas Mehta Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Dr. Hira Lal Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
17-02-2020 Naresh Kumar Arora & Another Versus Nitin Garg High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 Vinod Ravjibhai Rajput Versus State of Gujarat & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 Vinod Giri Goswami & Others Versus The State Of Uttarakhand & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Manager, Delhi Versus Chaman Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Jhanak Lal V/S State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Chattisgarh
13-02-2020 Vikas Panchayat, Gram Boheda Through Sarpanch, Rajasthan Versus Badri Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Ashok Alias Gore Lal Veruss State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-02-2020 Vinod Kumar Sahni & Others Versus Umesh Kumar Sahni & Others High Court of Delhi
11-02-2020 Kanhaiya Lal Versus Lala Ram & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-02-2020 Vinod Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Heera Lal Versus State High Court of Rajasthan
06-02-2020 Vinod Kumar Verma & Another Versus The Registrar General High Court Judicature At Alld & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
05-02-2020 Chhotey Lal @ Chottu Versus State High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 R.V. Vinod Versus The District Collector, Kanyakumari & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-02-2020 Madan Barman Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-01-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
29-01-2020 Karnveer Singh Versus Panji Lal Damor High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-01-2020 Mohit Lal Ghosh Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-01-2020 M/s. Urban Umbrella Development And Management Company Through Its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Punjab V/S Pawan Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-01-2020 Priyantha Lal Ramanayake Versus The Hon. Attorney General Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
27-01-2020 Khushru Dorab Madan Versus Union of India Represented by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 Lal Mohammed Versus State (Nct of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
24-01-2020 Chuni Lal Versus Munshi Ram & Another Supreme Court of India
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India
22-01-2020 Seema Lal & Others V/S State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
21-01-2020 Kishan Lal Chadha @ Krishan Lal Chadha (Deceased) Versus Anup Chadha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-01-2020 Madan Mohan Pandey Versus Union of India High Court of Jharkhand
17-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Orissa Versus Achhey Lal High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-01-2020 Rattan Lal Bharadwaj Versus Magma Financial Corporation Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-01-2020 In the Matter of: M/s. Aurotech Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s Garg Heart & Multispeciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd. National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
14-01-2020 Vinod Giri & Others Versus Sachiv Gram Panchayat Malhargarh High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
13-01-2020 M/s. Fun World & Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, Represented By Its Managing Director, Vinod Kumar Sabharwal Versus K.K. Nimil, Proprietor, M/s. Niel Entertainment, Palarivattom, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
08-01-2020 Shyam Lal Jayaswal Versus Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India