M/S Drn Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 & 2, R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW ITS COMMON ORDER DATED 24.08.2022 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2188/2017 C/W 2189/2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE -A GRANT RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶36

This review petition under Order XLVII Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 114 of CPC is filed with a prayer to review the common order dated 24.08.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2188/2017 c/w W.P.No.2189/2017 [GM-MM-S].

¶37

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶38

Petitioner herein was granted a quarry lease for extraction of ordinary building stone on 19.07.2013 for a period of five years in respect of land bearing Sy. No.106/A-1 to the extent of 10 acres. The Respondent No.3 - Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Haveri, had issued an annual audit report, in which it was mentioned that 2,28,010 Metric Tonnes [MTs] of ordinary building stone were quarried by the petitioner and 1,71,084 MTs were consumed during the said period. According to the audit report, the petitioner had removed 51,200 MTs of ordinary building stone from the quarry lease area on payment of royalty of `30,71,980/-, and it is

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

under these circumstances that notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to deposit a sum of `71,93,060/- towards royalty.

¶43

Subsequently, based on the oral instructions received from the Respondent No.5 - Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, orders dated 23.06.2016 were passed by the Senior Geologist demanding four times royalty amount payable i.e., a sum of `2,87,72,000/- on the grounds that (i) advance royalty has not been paid, (ii) mineral dispatch certificates were not obtained, and (iii) terms and conditions of quarrying lease deed book were violated.

¶44

Challenging the aforesaid demand for a sum of `2,87,72,200/made by the Senior Geologist, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.2188/2017.

¶45

By another order dated 24.11.2016, passed by the Senior Geologist, five times the amount of royalty, viz., `7,73,56,724/- for extraction of ordinary building stone from Bingaapur Quarrying Lease was also demanded, and the said order was assailed by the petitioner in W.P.No.2189/2017.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

This Court vide the order impugned dated 24.08.2022 had dismissed W.P.No.2188/2017 & W.P.No.2189/2017. Assailing the said order, petitioner had approached the Supreme Court in SLP(C).No.20197-20198/2022. The said petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to move this Court afresh if aggrieved by the order of this Court, including on the grounds raised in the special leave petition. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court in this review petition.

¶50

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that certain grounds which were raised and urged during the course of arguments were not considered by this Court while disposing of W.P.No.2188/2017 & W.P.No.2189/2017. He submits that it is under these circumstances that the Supreme Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to move this Court afresh. He submits that the terms and conditions found in the quarry lease deed are contrary to the statutory provisions, and there is no material to show that ordinary building stone was transported without a mineral dispatch permit. He submits that the terms and conditions of the quarry lease deed do not have statutory force and could not have been invoked for levying a penalty against the petitioners.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate has argued in support of the order impugned and submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, as has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen the case and argue a review petition as if it were an appeal. He submits that the grounds that were urged by the petitioner have been considered and answered in the order impugned, and therefore, there is no merit in this review petition. Accordingly, he prays that the petition be dismissed.

¶55

The contentions that were urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before the Bench of this Court, which had heard the writ petition, have been taken note of and mentioned in paragraph 6 of the order impugned, which reads as under:

¶56

"6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner has transported the mineral for a period prior to 12.08.2016. It is further submitted that, the provision incorporating the levy of penalty five times the royalty has been incorporated in Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) on 12.08.2016 and the said provision does not have a retrospective operation. It is also submitted that at the relevant time, there was no provision in the Rules authorizing the levy five times the amount of royalty. It is urged that under clause (4) of the lease agreement, the respondents have no authority to levy the penalty

¶57

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

five times the royalty amount which is not provided in the Rules. It is contended that, levy of penalty is per se without any authority of law. It is also urged that issue involved in these writ petitions has been answered in favour of the petitioner by two division benches of this Court vide orders dated 02.07.2019 and 04.09.2021 in W.P. No.27184/2019 and in W.P. No.15589/2021. Reference has also been made to decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in KERALA SEB v. KURIEN E KALATHIL - (2000) 6 SCC 293, STATE OF BIHAR v. JAIN PLASTICS & CHEMICALS LTD. - (2002) 1 SCC 216 and NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. GANGA ENTERPRISES - (2003) 7 SCC 410."

¶60

All the contentions that were urged on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition were considered and answered in the order impugned, and it was held that since the impugned demand was made invoking Clause 4 of Part-V of the lease agreement, the imposition of penalty was under a contract which has a statutory force. In paragraph 18 of the order impugned, it is further observed as under:

¶61

"18. Chapter VII of the Rules deals with the control of unauthorised transportation of minor minerals. Rule 44 of the Rules, which deals with offences is contained in Chapter VII of the Rules. Chapter VII is a special provision dealing with unauthorized transportation of minor minerals and unauthorized quarrying offences and therefore, provisions of Chapter VII and Clause 4 of Part V of the agreement, which provides for levy of penalty five times the royalty in case of unauthorized

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

transportation of minerals being the special provision would prevail over the general provision contained in Rule 6(3). Therefore, the contention that in view of Rule 6(3) of the Rules, only penalty of Rs.10,000/can be imposed does not deserve acceptance."

¶66

Before the Supreme Court, the special leave petitions that were filed challenging the order dated 24.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.2188/2017 & W.P.No.2189/2017 were withdrawn with liberty to move this Court afresh on the ground that certain submissions which were specifically urged have not been dealt with. While granting such liberty, the Supreme Court had also permitted the petitioner to urge the grounds which were raised before the Supreme Court.

¶67

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out to this Court any specific ground which was urged before this Court and not considered in the impugned order.

¶68

Petitioner has filed a review petition running to 55 pages, seeking to virtually reagitate the case, including advancing contentions which were not at all urged before this Court when the writ petition was heard. The power of review can be exercised only for the correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

face without any elaborate argument needed for establishing the same.

¶73

15. In the case of Parison Devi Vs Sumitri Devi¹ , while dealing

¶74

with the scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, the Supreme Court has observed as under:

¶75

"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.

¶76

In the case of Meera Bhanja Vs Nirmala Kumari

¶77

Choudhary² , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

¶78

"The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1, CPC. The review petition has to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one

¶79

1 (1997)8 SCC 715

¶80

2 AIR 1995 SC 455

¶81

10 -

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The limitation of powers of courts under Order 47 Rule 1, CPC is similar to the jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226."

¶85

17. Review of judgment or order cannot be sought on the basis of

¶86

what was never urged or argued before the Court. The review must remain confined to finding out whether there was any error apparent on the face of record as the power of review can be used to correct the mistake, but not to substitute one view for another. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of record.

¶87

S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs Narayana Reddy & Others³ , in

¶88

paragraph 24 to 33, has observed as under:

¶89

"24. It is also settled law that in exercise of review jurisdiction, the Court cannot reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter. In Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. [Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics &

¶90

3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

Hydropower Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 651] , this Court observed as follows:

¶95

“ 10 . … In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible . Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto . It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise .”

¶96

Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the superior court to correct errors committed by a subordinate court. This point has been elucidated in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. [Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 501] wherein it was held thus:

¶97

12 -

¶98

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

“ 11 . So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases .

¶101

12 . When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of “second innings” which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted .”

¶102

After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, this Court observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for

¶103

13 -

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarised in the captioned case as below:

¶107

“ 20 . Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1 . When the review will be maintainable

¶108

( i ) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

¶109

( ii ) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

¶110

( iii ) Any other sufficient reason.

¶111

The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [Chhajju Ram v. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius [Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, to mean ‘a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule’. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.

¶112

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable—

¶113

( i ) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

¶114

14 -

¶115

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

( ii ) Minor mistakes inconsequential import.

¶118

of

¶119

( iii ) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

¶120

( iv ) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

¶121

( v ) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

¶122

( vi ) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

¶123

( vii ) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

¶124

( viii ) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

¶125

( ix ) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”

¶126

In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, this Court was examining an order passed by the Judicial Commissioner who was

¶127

15 -

¶128

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

reviewing an earlier judgment that went in favour of the appellant, while deciding a review application filed by the respondents therein who took a ground that the predecessor court had overlooked two important documents that showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites through which the appellant had sought easementary rights to access his homestead. The said appeal was allowed by this Court with the following observations:

¶131

“3. … It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab, there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.”

¶132

16 -

¶133

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

In State of W.B. v. Kamal Sengupta, this Court emphasised the requirement of the review petitioner who approaches a Court on the ground of discovery of a new matter or evidence, to demonstrate that the same was not within his knowledge and held thus:

¶136

“ 21 . At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae . Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court earlier .”

¶137

In the captioned judgment, the term “mistake or error apparent” has been discussed in the following words:

¶138

“22. The term ‘mistake or error apparent’ by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put

¶139

17 -

¶140

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.”

¶143

In S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, this Court explained as to when a review jurisdiction could be treated as statutory or inherent and held thus:

¶144

“ 18 . Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice. Entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity and fairness. If the court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle be precluded from rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope of rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It is either statutory or inherent. The latter is available where the mistake is of the Court .”

¶145

18 -

¶146

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶147

HC-KAR

¶148

In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, this Court held as follows:

¶149

“4. … It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order.” (emphasis supplied)

¶150

In Shri Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat [Shri Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1, this Court has observed that Section 114CPC does not lay any conditions precedent for exercising the power of review; and nor does the section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order 47 Rule 1CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review.

¶151

As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order 47 Rule

¶152

19 - NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶153

HC-KAR

¶154

1CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the superior court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order 47 Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as “for any other sufficient reason”. The said phrase has been explained to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule”.

¶155

The Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal

¶156

Vs State Tax Officer (1) & Another⁴ , having referred to its earlier judgment in Parison Devi's case ( supra ) and other cases, has observed in paragraph no.16 as under:

¶157

"16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is

¶158

that:

¶159

16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶160

4 (2024)2 SCC 362

¶161

20 -

¶162

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶163

HC-KAR

¶164

16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

¶165

16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

¶166

16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”.

¶167

16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.

¶168

16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

¶169

16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

¶170

16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."

¶171

20. In the case of B. Dhanalakshmi Vs M. Shajahan⁵ , the High

¶172

Court of Madras has observed as under:

¶173

"If the parties are aggrieved by the judgment on the ground that it is erroneous, remedy is only

¶174

5 AIR 2004 MAD 512

¶175

21 -

¶176

NC: 2026:KHC:10038-DB RP No. 80 of 2023

¶177

HC-KAR

¶178

questioning the said order in appeal. The power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC may be opened inter alia, only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, the said power cannot be exercised as is permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'."

¶179

21. We find no ground to review the order. The review petition is,

¶180

accordingly, dismissed.

¶181

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶182

Sd/(S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶183

KK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

M/S Drn Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

M/S Drn Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sri Nandi Builders India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Army Housing Co. Operative Society Ltd.

S Sridhar Vs M Goutham Chand

Mr. Mohammed Usama Kandhlavi Vs Mr. Hassan Moosa

Mrs. Jayashree Vs Manappuram Finance Ltd.

H Manjunath Vs by Superintendent of Police

Srihari N Vs R Hareesh