Dismissed

Dileep Nevetia v. State Bank of India

Bombay HC12 Mar 2015S/3254/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this suit for damages against the State Bank of India, the Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for Rs. 160.38 lakhs. The court held there was no evidence on record to prove loss, profit, or causation. The court also refused leave to lead additional evidence for want of bona fide reasons.

What did the court decide?

Suit and Notice of Motion dismissed; no relaxation of evidence allowed; no order as to costs.

Dileep Nevetia Vs State Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 3254 OF 1991

¶4

WITH

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2680 OF 2014

¶6

DILEEP NEVATIA,
Sole Proprietor of M/s. Sundeep Industries
carrying on business at 52A Mamta, Opp.
Maratha Udyog Bhavan, New Prabhadevi
Road, Bombay – 400 025…Plaintiff

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE BANK OF INDIA,
a body corporate constituted under the
provisions of the State Bank of India Act,
1955 (23 of 1955) and the successor to State
Bank of Indore under Order 2010 passed by
the Central Government under Section
35(2) of the State Bank of India Act, 1955
(23 of 1955) through the Worli Branch and
having its office at Sterling Centre, Dr.
Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 …
018

¶9

Defendant

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

FORTHEPLAINTIFF
Mr. Dileep Nevatia, in person.
FORTHEDEFENDANT
Ms. Priyanka Kothari, with Ms. Pallavi
Kulkarni, i/b M/s. Bilawala & Co.,

¶12

1 of 16

¶13

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶14

CORAM:G.S.Patel, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:9th February 2015
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:12th March 2015
JUDGMENT:

¶15

1.Of the four principal reliefs sought in this suit, only the third
survives today. This is a prayer, originally cast in the alternative to
the preceding two, for a decree in damages in the amount of
Rs.160.38 lakhs against the Defendant with interest at 21% per
annum.

¶16

2.The original Defendant was the State Bank of Indore. It has
subsequently been taken over by the State Bank of India. The plaint
was amended to reflect this.

¶17

3.The Plaintiff, Mr. Dileep Nevatia, is the Sole Proprietor of a
firm called M/s. Sundeep Industries. Mr. Nevatia appears in person.
The firm used to carry on business in Mumbai. The Plaintiff’s case
is that his firm started business in 1975. From 1978 onwards, the
Plaintiff sought and was granted various banking and credit facilities
by the Defendant (then the State Bank of Indore). Initially, the
Plaintiff achieved a handsome turnover and profitability for the 10-
year period from 1978 to 1988. The Plaintiff contends that it is on
account of the wrongful acts and misconduct of the Defendant that
the Plaintiff’s firm went into losses. The Plaintiff manufactured and
marketed plastic goods and plastic products for the automobile and
scooter industries. The Plaintiff set up a manufacturing plant at

¶18

2 of 16

¶19

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶20

Nagpur. The Plaintiff availed various facilities and schemes directed
towards the growth of Small Scale Industries. From 1978 to 1988,
the Plaintiff’s account with the Defendant Bank was in good order.
By the year 1987, the Plaintiff had two or three distinct types of
credit facilities with the Defendant.

¶21

4.Briefly stated, the case of the Plaintiff is that in respect of
these facilities the Plaintiff executed various security documents in
favour of the Defendant. The Plaintiff claims that in July 1988, there
was a fraud on the part of two companies with whom the Plaintiff
dealt, i.e., S. N. Home Appliances Private Limited (“SN Home”)
and Bharat Electrical Industries Limited (“BHEL”). The Plaintiff
claims that these companies acted in collusion with the Branch
Manager of the then State Bank of Indore. The Plaintiff also claims
that the Defendant was negligent and a sum of Rs. 7.87 lakhs
remained unpaid to the Plaintiff under dishonoured Bills of
Exchange drawn by the Plaintiff on these two companies. The
dishonour of these Bills of Exchange and overdue interest were
debited to the Cash Credit Account of the Plaintiff which thus
became irregular, resulting in a stoppage of operations of that
account. This in turn, Mr. Nevatia says, brought the Plaintiff’s
business operations to a complete standstill. Mr. Nevatia claims that
he made representations and had meetings with representatives and
officers of the Defendant, and that there was some sort of
agreement arrived at with the Defendant for regularization of his
delinquent account. The Plaintiff claims to have implemented the
terms of this alleged agreement. In the plaint, a considerable amount
of correspondence is referred to, and it is sought to be contended
that the Defendant was obliged to rehabilitate the Plaintiff’s Indore

¶22

3 of 16

¶23

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶24

Unit in terms of an alleged agreement dated 18th June 1990. It is
also alleged that the Defendant had agreed not to recall the facilities
extended to the Plaintiff. This is the subject matter of prayers (a)
and (b) to the plaint. Mr. Nevatia fairly agrees that these reliefs do
not survive. The only surviving relief is the prayer for damages, i.e.,
prayer (c), which reads thus:

¶25

“(c)In the event the Hon’ble Court is not inclined to grant
relief in terms of prayer (a) and (b) herein above the
Defendants be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiffs a
sum of Rs. 160.38 lacs towards losses and damages suffered
by the Plaintiffs as per particulars of claim Ex. hereto with
further interest at 21% p.a. on Rs. 160.38 lacs from the date of
the suit till payment of realization;”

¶26

(In the original there is no cross-reference to any exhibit with
particulars of claim; no such particulas are annexed to the plaint.)

¶27

5.As we shall see, although it would ordinarily have been
necessary to consider in some detail the case placed by the Plaintiff
on the question of loss and damage suffered, this has been rendered
unnecessary on account of the evidence (or more properly, the lack
thereof) after the suit was taken to trial.

¶28

6.The Defendant filed a written statement. All the allegations of
the Plaintiff were denied. It was denied that there was any such
agreement as alleged. The Defendant denied that it was in any way
negligent. It is stated that the Bills of Exchange were dishonoured
after they were discounted by the Defendant and that the Defendant
is, therefore, the holder in due course of those Bills of Exchange.

¶29

4 of 16

¶30

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶31

Once the Bills of Exchange were dishonoured, the Defendant having
discounted them, the Plaintiff was liable to the Defendant in the
amounts of those instruments. All allegations of negligence are
specifically denied.

¶32

7.On these pleadings the following issues were framed on 27th
January 2014.

¶33

Sr.No Issues Findings a) Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is entitled to No. recover an amount of Rs. 160.38 lakhs or any other sum from the Defendant?

¶34

b) If the answer to question (a) is in affirmative, Does not survive. whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest, and if so, at what rate?

¶35

c) Whether the Defendant proves that the Plaintiff Not pressed. committed breach of the loan condition and diverted funds as alleged in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the written statement?

¶36

d) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff No. committed fraud on the defendant as alleged in paragraph 30 of the written statement?

¶37

e) What reliefs, if any? None. Suit dismissed.

¶38

8.The Plaintiff thereafter filed his affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief, an affidavit of documents and a compilation of
documents. Some of the Plaintiff’s documents were marked. The
Plaintiff was then cross-examined by Ms. Priyanka Kothari, learned
Advocate for the Defendant. Thereafter, the Defendant filed as
many as five affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief. This was
necessary in order to prove the documents produced by the
Defendant in a compilation. It seems that many of these documents
were all photocopies and not originals on account of the takeover of

¶39

5 of 16

¶40

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶41

the State Bank of Indore by the State Bank of India. It was with a
great deal of difficulty that some of those documents of the
Defendant were finally marked in evidence.

¶42

9. In paragraph 63 of his evidence affidavit, the Plaintiff says:

¶43

“63.I say that the conduct of the Defendant has resulted to
me a loss of profit and damages in the sum of Rs. 160.38 lacs
as more particularly set out herein below:

¶44

`Sr.`	`Description`	`Amount`
`No`
`1.`	`Amount of cash losses suffered` `(without considering bank interest)`
	`a)` `1988-89 to 1990-91`	`Rs. 34.00 Lacs`
	`b)` `1.4.1991 to 15.7.1991`	`Rs. 3.66 Lacs`
`2.`	`Loss of Profit`
	`a)` `1988-89 to 1990-91`	`Rs. 50.01 Lacs`
	`b)` `1.4.1991 to 15.7.1991`	`Rs. 4.86 Lacs`
`3.`	`Value of permanent loss of business`	`Rs. 57.85 Lacs`
`4.`	`Mental torture and anguish`	`Rs. 10.00 Lacs`
	`TOTAL`	`Rs. 160.38 Lacs`

¶45

I am therefore also entitled to an order and decree in the sum
of Rs. 160.38 lacs in my favour against the Defendant along
with further interest at the rate of 21% per annum on the
aforesaid amount from the date of the suit till payment or
realization.”

¶46

10.This must be read with paragraph 60 of the same affidavit,
which reads thus:

¶47

“60.I say that even since 1978 until 1988 my
Unit was a profit making Unit. The failure on the part of
the Defendant to assist me and instead stopping the

¶48

6 of 16

¶49

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶50

operation of my accounts with the Defendant and the
freezing of facilities granted to me has resulted in
losses to my Unit in the sum of Rs. 23,77,925/- for the
year 1988-89. I say that the sales effect and the labour
charges received for the year 1987-88 was Rs. 102.46
Lacs and the net profit during the year was Rs. 4.94
Lacs. The corresponding figures for the year 1988-89
i.e. after the stoppage of the facilities were sales Rs.
39.98 Lacs and net loss Rs. 23.78 Lacs. The said
figures are also confirmed by the Defendant by its
letter dated 6.3.1990. I am producing and tendering in
evidence the said letter dated 6.3.1990 issued by the
Defendant to M/s. Sundeep Industries, which is at
Page Nos. 78 and 79 of the Plaintiff’s documents.The
said letter bears the signature of the Defendant’s Worli
Branch Manager, who has issued the same in normal
course of its official duties and the same be exhibited
”
and marked as Exhibit No. .

¶51

( emphasis supplied )

¶52

11.I must note that the emphasised portion is entirely beyond the
pleadings and not part of the claim. But let me return to paragraph
63. This is the basis of prayer (c) to the plaint. What the Plaintiff has
stated in paragraph 63 is wholly without substantiation or proof.
There is absolutely nothing on record to indicate that the Plaintiff
suffered the cash losses or loss of profit claimed. There is nothing to
establish the value of permanent loss of business. The claim for
mental torture and anguish is not sustainable. This is, after all a
claim brought by a business concern. It is not a claim strictly
speaking by an individual. There is also nothing to show that any of

¶53

7 of 16

¶54

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶55

these losses, even if proved, are attributable to the Defendant in any
way.

¶56

12.The Plaintiff was extensively cross-examined by Ms. Kothari.
She specifically put to the Plaintiff whether there was any document
on record by which the Defendant had agreed to rehabilitate the
Plaintiff’s Unit. The Defendant agreed that there was no such
document.1

¶57

13.In paragraph 32 of his cross-examination, a suggestion was
put to the Plaintiff that there was no document to establish the cash
loss. The Plaintiff denied this. He referred to the Defendant’s letter
at page 78, part of Exhibit “P1”. That document is only a document
by which the Defendant sought particulars and details of a claim of
loss made by the Plaintiff. This is no evidence of actual loss. This is
further established by the next answer in cross-examination where
the Plaintiff agrees that there was no document adduced by him to
show that had the Bank accepted his proposal, the Plaintiff would
have made a total profit of Rs. 54.87 lakhs for the period 1st April
1988 to 15th July 1991.

¶58

14.In further cross-examination, the Plaintiff admits that he filed
a civil suit against S N Home and BHEL for recovery of the amount
under the two Bills of Exchange. He also admits that these Bills of
Exchange were discounted by the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s
allegation of collusion fails because in the civil suit filed against the
two parties, the Defendant was not impleaded. He also claims in

¶59

1 Paragraph 31 of the cross-examination.

¶60

8 of 16

¶61

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶62

paragraph 24 of his cross-examination that his account was irregular
only on account of the unpaid bills. Evidently, this does not appear
to be so. In effect, Mr. Nevatia’s claim is that the unpaid amounts of
these two Bills of Exchange, of a few lakhs, were the proximate,
direct and foreseeable cause of his firm’s losses of nearly a crore.

¶63

15.What is the negligence of which the Plaintiff complains? It is
simply this: that according to the Plaintiff the original Defendant
“failed and neglected to follow up the receipt of money and the
receipt of document from SBI, Delhi” in relation to the two Bills of
Exchange that were dishonoured by S. N. Home and BHEL. It is
difficult to understand what this is supposed to mean. It is only the
most generalized statement devoid of all particulars. It is not in
dispute that these two Bills of Exchange were discounted by the
Defendant Bank and that they were dishonoured by the two parties
on whom they were drawn. This can hardly be termed as negligence.
There could not have been dishonour with presentment, and
presentment is precisely the ‘follow up’ that Mr. Nevatia accuses
the Defendant of failing to do. Negligence, as a tort, must be
properly pleaded and proved. There is no proof of negligence.

¶64

16.The Plaintiff also cross-examined the Defendant’s witness,
one Prakash Narvekar. Nothing in that cross-examination in any way
assists the Plaintiff in establishing his case, which, we have seen is
limited to prayer (c) of Rs. 160.38 lakhs.

¶65

17.During final arguments, when I indicated that there was no
evidence in support of the claim for damages, Mr. Nevatia sought
leave to lead additional evidence. He even filed a Notice of Motion

¶66

9 of 16

¶67

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶68

for this. I adjourned that Notice of Motion to the hearing of this
suit, and I will turn to that Notice of Motion a little later in this
judgment.

¶69

18.A claim for damages must be both pleaded and proved. I will
assume for a moment that there is an adequate pleading although, in
my view, there is not. In itself, this is insufficient to support a
decree. The Plaintiff must necessarily prove his claim. Evidence
must be led on damages, including loss of profit and actual losses
suffered. This might have been done by leading the evidence of an
accountant, producing the necessary financial documents and
demonstrating that these losses were the direct, proximate and
foreseeable result of some action (or inaction) on the part of the
Defendant, and not influenced by other mitigating factors and
circumstances and, too, not so remote as to defeat causality. Not
only would the Plaintiff have to prove the so-called action or
inaction on the part of the Defendant, but he would also have to
prove causality between any such action or inaction and the losses
suffered by the Plaintiff, and which would also have had to be
separately proved.

¶70

19.None of this has been done. All that the Plaintiff has done is
to say in his examination-in-chief that these are the losses, in his
estimation, suffered by the Plaintiff. This is no evidence at all.

¶71

20.In these circumstances, it is not possible to grant the Plaintiff
any relief. All issues must be answered against the Plaintiff.

¶72

10 of 16

¶73

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶74

21.I must now consider the Notice of Motion (L) No. 2680 of
2014 filed by the Plaintiff. The Motion, as I have earlier noted, was
filed very late in the day after I had indicated to Mr. Nevatia during
the final arguments that no decree could be passed for want of
essential evidence. Prayer (a) of the Motion seeks that the Plaintiff’s
evidence be reopened and the Plaintiff be allowed to lead further
evidence to establish his claim. The submission is that it can always
be done and is within the powers of the Court in exercise of its
discretion to meet the ends of justice. He relies on the decision of
the Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy v N. Palanisamy.2 This is not an
authority for a proposition as wide as Mr. Nevatia canvasses, viz.,
that a Court must accept every such application. Of course a Court
has an inherent power to do so, but it must be for bona fide cause and
for compelling reasons. Of these, there are none.

¶75

22.In the Affidavit in Support, the Plaintiff admits that he has
been unable to produce records to substantiate the loss and damage
claimed for the period 1988 to 1991. He claims that his accounts for
this period were subjected to substantial scrutiny by the Income Tax
Department and that these records lay with his Chartered
Accountant who was handling with the matter. Other than stating
the broad period of this hiatus, no specific dates are given. The
Plaintiff then says that after the records were returned by the
Chartered Accountant, they were stored in his bungalow at Worli
Sea Face. He then alleged that “some years later” these records
were shifted without his knowledge to his family’s office-cum-
godown at Udyog Bhavan at Worli. How and in what circumstances
this happened and precisely when is not stated. The Plaintiff then

¶76

2 (2011) 11 SCC 275

¶77

11 of 16

¶78

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶79

goes on to say that his suit was listed after a gap of about 20 years on
17th January 2014 and that within a month, he was asked to file his
evidence affidavit and documents. He claims that he made efforts to
find the documents, could not find them and the matter proceeded
to trial without these additional documents that he now says are
critical.

¶80

23.What follows in the Affidavit in Support is more peculiar. In
paragraph 5, the Plaintiff says that “around a couple of months
back” while once again searching for the documents at home, he
also considered searching his office or godown and asked his staff to
do so. In the following paragraph, he says that it was only during the
week of 26th November 2014 that these affidavits were found at
Udyog Bhavan (the office-cum-godown) and brought to his home.
He claims that it is only after this that he has been able to collate
these documents, including the statements signed by him,
assessment orders and letters from his Chartered Accountant. He,
therefore, claims that he was unable to lay his hands on the
documents at an earlier stage, and that the omission was not
deliberate.

¶81

24.This affidavit is most regrettable. The final hearing of the suit
began before me on 24th November 2014. This was after the
Plaintiff filed a considerable affidavit of evidence, produced several
documents, and was himself cross-examined, after which he
objected to the Defendant’s documents (forcing them to file one
affidavit evidence after the other). At the final hearing, I pointed out
to the Plaintiff that necessary evidence had not been brought on
record. It was only then that the Plaintiff sought an adjournment and

¶82

12 of 16

¶83

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶84

three days later, i.e., after having been put to notice of the fatal
absence of evidence, that this Notice of Motion was filed on 27th
November 2014 citing a date of 26th November 2014 when the
mystery documents were miraculously found. The so-called
unearthing of these documents is thus not attributable to any great
diligence on the part of the Plaintiff. It is an assertion wholly
unworthy of credence. The dates themselves show that it was not
until the Plaintiff was put to notice of a fatal lacuna in his evidence
that he came up with this excuse (there is simply no other way to
describe it). The assertion that the Plaintiff’s staff located the
necessary documents only on 26th November 2014 is not in the
least credible. This is evident from the affidavit itself, for the
Plaintiff states that the hunt for these documents began only a
couple of months ago. It is too curious a coincidence to be true that
the Plaintiff’s staff serendipitously discovered these documents a
mere two days after the Plaintiff was put to notice in Court of the
lack of necessary evidence in his suit.

¶85

25.Mr. Nevatia’s troubles do not begin and end in the evidence
affidavit. They start in the plaint itself. There we find no particulars
of the damages claimed; none at all. These are introduced only in
the evidence affidavit in paragraph 63. Prayer (c) of the Plaint is not
cast in generalities. It makes a reference to a very specific amount.
The break down of this amount is given in paragraph 63 of Mr.
Nevatia’s evidence affidavit. It is not possible that either in the
Plaint or in the evidence affidavit, one that it is dated 10th February
2014, Mr. Nevatia could have arrived at figures of such precision as
Rs.4.86 lakhs, Rs.3.66 lakhs and Rs.57.85 lakhs with an exactly
specified period of 1st April 1991 to 15th July 1991 without having at

¶86

13 of 16

¶87

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶88

hand or at least to his knowledge the relevant material. If the
Plaintiff has failed to produce this material the Defendant certainly
cannot be disadvantaged by that fact since the Defendant has done
nothing to obstruct the Plaintiff in the production of that material.
Indeed I may note that it is the Plaintiff who has almost always
objected to the production of copies by the Defendant.

¶89

26.In any case, the very least the Plaintiff ought to have done was
to show in his Affidavit in Support of the Notice of Motion how the
material he sought to adduce would advance his cause. This is not
ordinarily required in a routine interlocutory application, but I
believe it is essential to satisfy the tests of bona fides and good cause
in so extraordinary an application at so late a stage. Instead, as I have
noted, all that the Affidavit in Support of the Notice of Motion
contains is the broadest generalities. It cannot be that a plaintiff,
simply because he appears pro se, is afforded liberties not available to
those who choose legal representation and a defendant, especially a
public sector corporation, is forced to defend itself against a
constantly evolving and reinvented case.

¶90

27.It is not possible at this stage to allow the Plaintiff to lead any
additional evidence. No sufficient ground has been made out for
this.

¶91

28.Mr. Nevatia has, after judgment was reserved, submitted a
compilation of judgments and notes of arguments. These are all
irrelevant to the issue at hand. Nothing in these notes or in the
decisions cited by Mr. Nevatia persuades me to hold that I should
take so extreme step as to re-open the evidence now long closed.

¶92

14 of 16

¶93

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶94

The entire trial in this matter has been conducted before me. Mr.
Nevatia has left no stone unturned and has raised every possible
objection to the introduction of documents by the Defendant. He
has in fact even denied some letters between him and the Bank that
form part of a chain of correspondence. All of this is a matter of
record and of previous orders. It simply cannot be that when it
comes to the Defendant every technical objection that is available is
taken but when it comes to a fundamental issue of the lack of
evidence, Mr. Nevatia falls back on, inevitably, Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Nothing in that Section expressly
requires the order that Mr. Nevatia demands. That Section
empowers a Court to balance competing demands and to act in the
interest of justice. I do not see how, on these facts, the Plaintiff can
be said to have been disadvantaged in any way. He had every
opportunity to lead his best evidence. He chose not to do so till it
was pointed out as late as on 24th November 2014 that there was a
serious infirmity in his case. Till then he made not the slightest
attempt to bring forward the documents that he now says are
crucial.

¶95

29.Mr. Nevatia’s written arguments also spread over a much
wider canvass that he ever argued. In these, he has sought to
introduce new evidence. This is impermissible. He has also
contended that he was not cross-examined on his claim for damages
as set out in his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The
submission is, therefore, that the entire claim must be deemed to be
admitted. This submission only needs to be stated to be rejected. It
was for the Plaintiff to discharge the burden of proof of establishing
by appropriate and cogent evidence his claim for damages. Indeed,

¶96

15 of 16

¶97

S3254-91-NEVATIA V SBI-F.DOC

¶98

this submission is defeated by the Plaintiff in his own Notice of
Motion, where he categorically pleads for leave to lead additional
evidence in support of this very claim. It is true that the Defendant
has put forward an affirmative case in its written statement.
However, no counter-claim was ever filed. It is first for the Plaintiff
to establish his claim and it is only if he has discharged his burden
that the Defendant can be required to prove its case. The Defendant
claimed that there was fraud and collusion on the part of the
Plaintiff. It is wholly immaterial to the Plaintiff’s case on damages
whether the Defendant proves this case on fraud or not.

¶99

30.The Suit and the Notice of Motion are both dismissed. There
will be no order as to costs.

¶100

31.A final word. Mr. Nevatia is a party in a great many cases. He
conducts them himself and he does so, if I may say so, with
admirable poise, preparation and good humour. My comments are
not a reflection on his abilities, perseverance or endurance. Equally,
I must thank Ms. Kothari for her assistance and commend her for
the manner in which she has conducted her case; for she has done
so with a rare calmness, fixity of purpose and dignity.

¶101

(G.S. PATEL, J.)

¶102

16 of 16

Dileep Nevetia v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Nevetia v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish G. Kamath and 5 Ors. Vs Lime and Chilli Hospitality Services

Milind Vithal Valawalkar Vs Shyamala Anil Puri

Sunanda Sakharam More @ Rulhmini Sakharam More Vs Aruna Rakesh Sonawane and Anr.

Samentha Conceicao Vs Andison Conceicao

Mr.Yatin Hariram Ruparel and Anr. Vs Shantadevi Ruparel

Sardar Jagmohan Singh Anand Vs Bhupender Singh Anand