No Legal Evidence, No Process: A Session Judge's Compass for Deciding Criminal Revisions Against Orders Issuing Process

 The Core Idea in One Line

An order issuing process cannot survive revision if it rests on no admissible, relevant material connecting the accused to the offence — but a Sessions Judge examining that question in revision must look only at the record that was before the Magistrate, and must never reweigh or reappraise the evidence found there.

What Counts as "Legal Evidence"

"Legal evidence" is admissible material — recognized as such under the Evidence Act — bearing a rational, probative connection to an ingredient of the offence charged. It is not simply anything appearing in the case file. Four elements define it:

Print Page

Pleadings-First Doctrine: Supreme Court Clarifies Mandatory Scrutiny of Pleadings before Allowing Additional Evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC

In the application preferred Under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, the Defendant stated that he got the information that there was no such sale by the Plaintiffs in the last week of June, 2000. After making inquiries in the office of the Sub-Registrar, he got such information and obtained certified copies of extracts of said documents. It can be seen that the High Court has proceeded to consider the application under provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code without examining as to whether the additional evidence sought to be led was supported by the pleadings of the Defendant in the written statement. {Para 7}

8. In our opinion, before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of such party to gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded so as to support the additional evidence that is proposed to be brought on record. In absence of necessary pleadings in that regard, permitting a party to lead additional evidence would result in an unnecessary exercise and such evidence, if led, would be of no consequence as it may not be permissible to take such evidence into consideration. Useful reference in this regard can be made to the decisions in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Anr.   MANU/SC/8199/2008 : 2008:INSC:1072 : AIR 2009 SC 1103 and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr.,   MANU/SC/0561/2012 : 2012:INSC:288 : (2012) 8 SCC 148. Thus, besides the requirements prescribed by Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code being fulfilled, it would also be necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the party seeking to lead such additional evidence. It is only thereafter on being satisfied that a case as contemplated by the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code has been made out that such permission can be granted. In absence of such exercise being undertaken by the High Court in the present case, we are of the view that it committed an error in allowing the application moved by the Defendant for leading additional evidence.

9. As we have found that the application for leading additional evidence has been considered by the Appellate Court without examining the aspect as to whether the additional evidence proposed to be led was in consonance with the pleadings of the Defendant and whether such case had been set up by him coupled with the fact that the additional evidence taken on record has weighed with it while reversing the decree, the matter requires re-consideration by the High Court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10458 of 2010 

Decided On: 22.08.2025

Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Abdul Shukoor.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1027, MANU/SC/1139/2025.

Print Page

Important provisions of Indian evidence Act relating to public documents

74. Public documents.—The following documents are public documents—

(1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts—

(i) of the sovereign authority,

(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and

(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;

(2) public records kept [in any State] of private documents.

Print Page

Bom HC: Document obtained under RTI can not be treated as public document if original is private document

Under RTI, usually the applicant gets photostat copies of the documents which are certified as true copies. They cannot be equated with certified copies mentioned in the Evidence Act. In other words, if the official under RTI certifies and supplies a private document, it still remains a private document. Thus, the RTI Act does not affect the nature of a document.

36. In Datti Kameswari, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that the copies obtained under the Right to Information Act certified by the Authorised Information Officer cannot be termed public documents or primary evidence. Only if the original qualifies to be a public document, then does its certified copy. But if the original is a private document, its copy secured under RTI Act does not get transformed into a public document. In that event, that certified copy of the private document must satisfy the provisions of Evidence Act for secondary evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 8764 of 2018

Decided On: 07.08.2019

 Kumarpal N. Shah Vs.  Universal Mechanical Works Pvt. Ltd.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Registered leave and licence agreement is not public document

 In fact, this Court, in Vithoba Savlaram v. Shrihari Narayan MANU/MH/0077/1944 : AIR 1945 BOM 319, has held that once a private document has been kept in official record with entry about their execution, say by a registering authority, that document per se does not become a public document. But the entry in the official record in relation to that document does.

41. Here the alleged registered 'leave and license agreement' still remains a private document that its registration does not cure the mischief under Section 74 of the Act. Its marking through PW1 does not amount to its proof, though. I reckon the other documents are public documents or private documents sought to be marked through PW1, from whom they originate. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 8764 of 2018

Decided On: 07.08.2019

 Kumarpal N. Shah Vs.  Universal Mechanical Works Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 Bom 290: 2020(1) MHLJ 442

Print Page

When certified copy of public document is presumed to be authentic?

Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct an public and private business, in their relation to the fact of the particular case. The illustrations to the section state that the Court may presume, inter alia, that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. In respect of public documents which form the acts or records of the acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and Tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, the presumption can be and is, in fact, invariably drawn. It is necessary, however, to appreciate that the source of the presumption is S. 114.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Suit No. 1108 of 1981

Decided On: 28.06.1982

Om Prakash Berlia  Vs. Unit Trust of India and Ors

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.P. Bharucha, J.

Citation:AIR 1983 Bom 1

Print Page

Whether certified copy of plaint is public document?

 The certified copy of the plaint is not a public document. Hence, it requires proof. For proving such document, the original plaint should have been called in the court. That is not done, hence the certified copy of the plaint could not be said to be proved at all.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 67 of 1996

Decided On: 29.01.2008

 Shamlata  Vs. Vishweshwar Tukaram Giripunje and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges: 

C.L. Pangarkar, J.

Citation: AIR 2008 Bom 155

Print Page

Whether bailiff report is public document?

 But, if the report of the bailiff was to be treated as a
public document, there was nothing for the respondent no.4 to
do, but to produce a certified copy of the same and then claim
that he had proved his stand. This would be contrary to the
requirement of Section 101 of the aforesaid Act, which reads as
follows:-
101. Burden of proof.—Whoever desires any
Court to give judgment as to any legal right or
liability dependent on the existence of facts
which he asserts, must prove that those facts
exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of
any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on
that person.
18. Thus, it becomes clear that the burden to prove

clearly was on the respondent no.4 in the facts of the present
case. Only the contents of the summons issued by the Court,
consisting of name of the Court, name of the parties, seal of
the Court and the returnable date stated in the summons could
be said to be a public document. The report written by the
bailiff on the reverse of the said document could certainly not
be said to be a public document under Section 74 of the said
Act. Yet, the trial Court passed the order dated 26.08.2015
allowing the production of the documents, including the bailiff
report, by the respondent no.4 and passed the impugned order
dated 26.08.2015 below Exh.40 holding the said documents to
be directly admissible in evidence as public documents and
marking them as exhibits. The trial Court also erred in passing
the impugned order dated 21.07.2016 below Exh.44 rejecting
the application of the petitioner for de-exhibiting the said
documents including the bailiff report. It is also surprising that
the trial Court did not even call for the say/response of the
petitioner while passing the order, whereby production of the
documents was allowed and while passing impugned order
dated 26.08.2015, whereby the documents including the said
bailiff report, were treated as public documents and accepted.
This was clearly erroneous, thereby rendering the impugned
orders unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside.

19. In the light of the above, the present writ petition is
allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.
The application Exh.44 is allowed. It is held that the bailiff
report sought to be placed on record and exhibited as public
document cannot be treated as a public document and that it
will have to be proved by respondent no.4 in accordance with
law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 79 of 2017

Sushilkumar Mandanlal Ganediwal, Vs  Vijaykumar Mandanlal Ganediwal,


CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED: JANUARY 31,2019
Citation: 2019(3) MHLJ 721,AIR 2019 BOM 201

Print Page

Whether registered sale deed is public document?

 A sale deed which is not registered would be a private document as also a sale deed which is registered. On registration the sale deed does not become a public document. The sale deed continues to be a private document.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 2032 of 2008

Decided On: 15.07.2008

 Chetan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Bora and F.I. Rebello, JJ.

Citation: 2008(6) MHLJ 762

Print Page

Whether registered deed of assignment is public document?

 The Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 describes which documents would form public documents. The sub-section (1) thereof provides that the documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of the sovereign authority, of official bodies and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country are the public documents whereas the sub-section (2) of Section 74 provides that the public records kept in any state of private documents are also public documents. Merely because the public records kept in the state of private documents are defined as public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, that itself would not amount to contend that any document executed between two or more parties by itself would form a public document. The record pertaining to such document kept by the State though in the form of public record may form a public document, any such private document by itself cannot constitute to be a public document and it will continue to be a private document executed by the private parties. As such document would be a document enumerated under Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act. Being so, merely because the deed of assignment is registered with the competent authority that deed itself would not partake the nature of a public document and it will continue to be a private document. A record relating to the execution of such deed maintained by the State however may be a public document bearing in mind the provision of law comprised under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. Being so, the contention that the deed of assignment is a public document and therefore the petitioner would be taken by surprise by production of such document is to be rejected as being totally devoid of substance.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

W.P. No. 5832 of 2004

Decided On: 20.09.2004

 Purushottam Vs.  A.N. Jog and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

Citation: 2005(1) MHLJ 426

Print Page

Whether assessment list is a public document which can be directly exhibited?

It cannot be seriously disputed that an assessment register is required to be kept in law and the entries therein are made for the purposes of compilation of an assessment list in cases of revision of assessment of the properties within a Municipal area. This is clearly permitted and required under the relevant Act. The documents, therefore, were clearly admissible and it was not right to keep them out of the record and not to exhibit them. It is, however, an entirely different matter as to the probative value of that document and in particular as to whether from the statements therein by themselves a particular fact is established. That depends upon various other facts and circumstances. The extracts, therefore, are directed to be exhibited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition Nos. 1448 and 2744 of 1978

Decided On: 04.03.1983

 Sugrabi  Vs.  Cavas Navroji Patel and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.D. Tulpule, J.

Citation: 1984(2) BomCR 277

Print Page

Whether appellate court should allow production of additional evidence if it is public documents?

Learned Counsel for the Appellants, however, argued that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27-A of the Code and hence the application filed by the Respondent ought not to have been allowed by the High Court. The submission, in our opinion, has no merit for the following reasons.

28. In the first place, the documents sought to be filed by the Respondent, namely, notifications issued under the Act were relevant and also necessary for deciding the rights of the parties involved in the suit/appeal. Second, these documents did not require any proof being public documents in nature. Third, the Respondent had already made reference of these documents and laid foundation in the pleadings and lastly, the first Appellate Court has jurisdiction Under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code to allow the parties to file additional evidence, if such documents are required to decide the suit/appeal provided satisfactory explanation is given as to why the documents could not be filed in the suit and why they are filed in appeal. The Respondent, in this case, did give the explanation, which found acceptance to the High Court and, in our opinion, rightly.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 4412-4413 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 28437-28438 of 2015)

Decided On: 25.04.2018

Y.P. Sudhanva Reddy Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka Milk Federation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Citation:(2018) 6 SCC 574

Print Page

Whether certified copy of will is public document?

 Yet another aspect to be considered is that the Will is not a public document under Section 74 of the Act. It can be held that certified copy of the Will is not admissible per se in evidence. It cannot be presumed to be a primary document, which could be adduced in evidence.

Karnataka High Court

Rajendra @ Deendhar Genitive vs Smt. Ningawwa W/O Dodappa ... on 28 August, 2017

Print Page

Five steps inquiry for inferring that there was valid execution of will

 This court in the case of Sri J.T.Surappa and another -v- Sri Satchidhanandendra Sarawathi Swamiji Public Charitabel Trust and Others reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2115 has laid down the five steps to be considered to prove the Will, viz., under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Will to be valid, should be reduced into writing, signed by the testator and shall be attested by two or more witnesses and atleast one attesting witnesses shall be examined. If these legal requirements are not found, in the eye of law there is no Will at all. The second step is that when the legal heirs are disinherited, the court has to scrutinize the evidence with greater degree of care than usual, the third step would be to find out whether the testator was in a sound state of mind at the time of executing the Will. Fourth step is whether there exist any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. Fifth step is to consider whether the Will that is executed is in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, r/w Section 68 of Evidence Act. In the light of the said judgment, examination of the attesting witness is sine qua non to prove the Will.

12. As could be seen from the certified copy of the registered Will, neither the signature of the testator can be verified nor the signature of the attesting witnesses can be examined. Thus it would be a futile exercise to accord permission for leading secondary evidence on the basis of certified copy of the Will.

13. It is well settled law that the entries made in the revenue records would not confer any title and right to the parties. Any entry mutated in the revenue register also would not come to the assistance of the petitioner herein unless the original Will is produced before the Court.

14. Yet another aspect to be considered is that the Will is not a public document under Section 74 of the Act. It can be held that certified copy of the Will is not admissible per se in evidence. It cannot be presumed to be a primary document, which could be adduced in evidence.

Karnataka High Court

Rajendra @ Deendhar Genitive vs Smt. Ningawwa W/O Dodappa ... on 28 August, 2017

Author: S.Sujatha

Print Page

Whether police manual is confidential document?

 Respondent No. 2 in the present case is not seeking any
information as contemplated under section 8(1) (e), (g) and (h). Police

Manual cannot be equated with the information and therefore, there is
no impediment in giving copies thereof to him. Sub-section 8(2) has no
application in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Judicial
note can be taken of the fact that police manual is Government
publication and copies of same are easily available. We therefore, do
not find any error in the impugned order. The petitions are devoid of any
merits. The same are accordingly dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9971 OF 2013
The State of Maharashtra 
V/s.
The Chief Information Commissioner & anr. 

 CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
 SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ.
 DATE : APRIL 19, 2018.

Print Page

Whether private document can be treated as public document if it is registered with competent authority?

The Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 describes which documents would form public documents. The sub-section (1) thereof provides that the documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of the sovereign authority, of official bodies and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country are the public documents whereas the sub-section (2) of Section 74 provides that the public records kept in any state of private documents are also public documents. Merely because the public records kept in the state of private documents are defined as public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, that itself would not amount to contend that any document executed between two or more parties by itself would form a public document. The record pertaining to such document kept by the State though in the form of public record may form a public document, any such private document by itself cannot constitute to be a public document and it will continue to be a private document executed by the private parties. As such document would be a document enumerated under Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act. Being so, merely because the deed of assignment is registered with the competent authority that deed itself would not partake the nature of a public document and it will continue to be a private document. A record relating to the execution of such deed maintained by the State however may be a public document bearing in mind the provision of law comprised under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. Being so, the contention that the deed of assignment is a public document and therefore the petitioner would be taken by surprise by production of such document is to be rejected as being totally devoid of substance.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

W.P. No. 5832 of 2004

Decided On: 20.09.2004

Purushottam alias Nana U. Sanyasi Vs. A.N. Jog and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

Citation: 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 426,

Print Page

Whether certified copy of cancellation deed of will is public document?

Faced with this situation, it was urged on behalf of the original plaintiffs that the deed of cancellation being duly registered, said document was a public document as contemplated by Section 74 of the said Act and hence it could be proved as a public document. This submission cannot be accepted. The deed of cancellation is a document executed between two private parties. As held in Purushottam v. A.N. Jog MANU/MH/0879/2004 : 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 426, merely because a private document is registered with the competent authority, such private document by itself cannot be treated to be a public document and it would continue to be a private document executed by private parties. Thus, mere registration of the deed of cancellation executed by a private party cannot by itself result in such document getting the character of a public document under Section 74 of the said Act. The deed of 

cancellation cannot be treated as a public document under Section 74 of the said Act.

13. It is well settled that mere exhibition of a document does not amount to proof of its contents nor does it amount to a party admitting the contents of such document. The party relying upon such document has to independently prove its contents. This position is clear from the decisions in Ramji Dayawala and sons and M/s. Sanjay Cotton Company (supra).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 62 of 2004

Decided On: 28.09.2017

 Vitthalrao  Vs. Domaji Pandurang Kokate and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: 2018(2) MHLJ 52

Print Page

Whether Certified copy of public document is admissible in evidence without being proved by calling witness?

 Now the other question which remains to be decided is whether the compromise Ex. D3 is admissible in evidence or not? The compromise dated 27.11.1972 has become the basis of the decree dated 08.12.1972 passed by the Sub-Judge, Hoshiarpur. The perusal of Ex. D4 i.e., judgment and decree were passed as per the terms and conditions of compromise placed on file. As rightly observed by the courts below, the compromise has merged into a decree and has become part and parcel of it. To put it clear, the compromise had become a part of the decree which was passed by the court of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Hoshiarpur. Hence, it is a public document in terms of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short `the Act') and certified copy of the public document prepared under Section 76 of the Act is admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the said Act. A certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence without being proved by calling  witness. Inasmuch as the decree was passed and drafted in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties, viz., the plaintiff and the defendants, the certified copy of such document which was produced before the Court, there is presumption as to the genuineness of such certified copy under Section 78 of the Act. We have already noted that the appellant-Jaswant Singh has not challenged the genuineness of certified copy in any manner. Although the record of the Court has been proved to be burnt in a fire in Judicial Record Room, Hoshiarpur on 16.06.1998, but the certified copy of the compromise (Ex.D3), which is the part of the decree was obtained from the record room on 24.08.1988 and the Decree Ex.D4 was got issued on 12.09.1984. In those circumstances, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of compromise (Ex.D3). Even otherwise, as rightly observed by the courts below, the appellant-Jaswant Singh had not filed any other substitute of the document Ex.D3, on the basis of which the decree (Ex.D4) had been said to be passed. As stated earlier, in view of the fact that the decree dated 08.12.1972 clearly says that the suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff as  per the terms of the compromise placed on file, there can be no other way to interpret the decree except in terms and conditions of the compromise (Ex.D3).
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Jaswant Singh vs Gurdev Singh & Ors on 21 October, 2011

Bench: P. Sathasivam, Jasti Chelameswar

Citation;2012(2)BomCR608,2012(3)MhLJ165(SC), (2012)2MLJ627(SC), 

 (2012)1SCC425

Print Page

Whether remand report is public document or not ?

A Division Bench in IN RE RAMAN VELU (1972 KLT 922) held thus:

"Where, under S.167 or S.344 of the Code, the Magistrate passes an order of remand of the accused to custody, he performs a judicial act. That being so, the report, if any, submitted by the police is to furnish necessary information, on the perusal and examination of which the Magistrate has to take a decision as to whether or not the accused is to be committed to custody, or continued to be kept in custody, as the case may be. The purpose of the "remand report" is a relevant consideration in construing whether it is a 'public document' or not. What  

forms the basis of a judicial decision, or what is used to any extent in aid of a judicial decision, cannot but be a public document in our view. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the remand report submitted by the Police, whether in relation to the remand under S.167, of extension or remand under S.344 of the Code, is a public document within the meaning of S.74 of the Evidence Act. What is expected to be furnished to the court at the time of moving for the remand or for the extension of the remand, are the entries in the case diary which is a document forming acts or record of acts of the investigating officer."

Kerala High Court

SUNNY JOSEPH,vs STATE on 8 August, 2011

Bail Appl..No. 5786 of 2011()

Read full judgment here:click here 

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to examine witness to prove certified copy of school records?

 The impugned order shows the Labour Officer of the Corporation having relied upon and produced various documents from the school records of the Petitioner as well as of her siblings in Primary Kanya Shala No. 3 of Panvel Nagar Parishad. These documents include the applications made at the time of the admission to the school for Petitioner and her sisters, the School Leaving Certificates of the Petitioner and her sisters, the admission register given by the Head Mistress of the School, a general register of the pupils of the school from old register indicating the date of birth record of the Petitioner etc. These documents are private documents. They carry no presumption in law. Certified copies of these documents are not admissible in evidence. These documents have to be proved by direct evidence as all private documents are required to be proved. It may be mentioned that the date of birth shown in the application for admission to the school are what the parents of the students state. They are not accompanied by documentary evidence to substantiate such dates of birth as correct. The school record would continue to show, until contrary is shown or proved, the date stated by the parents. The record of the school do not show that these dates have been verified from authenticated public documents such as the birth certificate or the record of birth maintained by the Municipal Authorities. Therefore the copies of the documents of the school cannot be taken as authentic.

13. It is common knowledge that to secure admission in the school earlier than at the age which the law permits, an incorrect date of birth may be shown. Unless verified from public records such date may remain in the record of the school. This cannot be verified except by production of public records. They, therefore, cannot be authentic dates as would make those documents admissible as evidence with probative value in law.

Equivalent Citation : 2008 (5)MhLj 147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Writ Petition No. 6962 of 2006

Decided On: 17.04.2008

 Smt. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandvilkar Vs. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ranjana Prakash Desai and R.S. Dalvi, JJ.

Print Page