Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help

 Welcome Guest | Aug 23 2014
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus



Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Subject Modules

Database updates


Tamil Nadu Fly Ash Bricks and Block's Manufactures Association, Represented by its President, Chennai and others vs Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, (One of the Successor entity of TNEB) Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 19 Aug 2014]

Union of India Represented by Chairman cum Managing Director Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi and others vs V. Krishnan Chief Telephone Supervisor (Retd.) and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 14 Aug 2014]

Kulandai Velu vs Joint Director of School Education, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 14 Aug 2014]
Trusts & Associations - Practice & Procedure - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 226 - Approval of school committee - Registration of form-VII - Legality - Petitioner was member of Trust, which established an educational institution - Respondent no.6 floated a paper publication declaring that he was convening the general body meeting to elect the Executive Committee of the Trust and without conducting any such meeting, he declared the constitution of new Executive Committee and claimed that 'MN' was elected a president of Trust - Aggrieved petitioner filed a suit praying for a decree of declaration that the election held on 23-2-2013 was a nullity, to restrain educational authorities from granting approval of School Committee and to restrain the District Registrar from entertaining form-VII and similar other reliefs - Meanwhile, respondent no. 3 passed an order, approving the Committee - Hence, instant petition - Petitioner contended that even before the approval of form-VII by District Registrar, respondent no. 3 hastily approved the School Committee and that registration of form-VII was a mandatory requirement for considering the application for approval of School Committee and that respondent no. 3, without conducting enquiry with regard to the election of respondent no. 5 and the School Committee, approved the Committee -

Held, petitioner already filed a comprehensive suit before District Munsif, challenging the decision taken in the meeting and election of respondent n. 5 - Petitioner in said suit wanted the District Educational Officer not to approve the Committee - Similarly, he wanted an injunction restraining the District Registrar from entertaining form-VII - Petitioner failed to obtain any kind of interim orders from the Civil Court - District Educational Officer passed the impugned order during the currency of the civil suit - Nothing prevented the petitioner from amending the prayer for the purpose of setting aside the impugned order, which was passed during the currency of civil suit - Petitioner appears to be interested in conducting parallel proceedings - It was not possible for HC exercising jurisdiction u/art. 226 of Constitution to consider disputed facts and to arrive at a finding as to whether the election conducted on 23-2-2013 was a valid election and whether respondent no. 5 was duly and properly elected as the President - In instant case, District Educational Officer very clearly stated that approval of Committee was subject to production of form-VII and judgment and decree to be passed in suit - Approval of School Committee was given by respondent no. 3 on the basis of a decision taken by members of the Trust - Validity of election was under challenge before the Civil Court at the instance of the petitioner - Impugned proceedings was, thus, only a consequential proceedings - Petitioner should obtain a declaration from the Civil Court with regard to the validity of the election held on 23-2-2013 - It would not be possible for District Educational Officer to decide the validity of election, while considering the application submitted by respondent no. 5 for approval of School Committee - Petitioner had no case that he raised a dispute with regard to the approval of Committee and a request was made to the District Educational Officer not to approve the Committee - Respondent no. 3 was, thus, perfectly justified in approving the School Committee - There was merit in the contention taken by petitioner - Trial Court was directed to decide the civil independently on merits and as per law, without in anyway being influenced by subsequent events and more particularly, approval of School Committee by respondent no. 3 - Petition dismissed.

P. Janakiraman vs State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Superintending Engineer, Highways, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 14 Aug 2014]
Contract & Commercial - Practice & Procedure - Contract work agreement - Claim of new rates - Entitlement of - Respondent invited tender for the work of widening and strengthening of road - Tender of appellant, being the lowest among others, an agreement was entered into between the parties - Agreement was drawn for a total value of Rs.4,38,53,328/- - Appellant was supposed to complete the work on or before 26-11-2004 - Agreement got extended as the work could not be completed - Respondent accordingly extended the agreement till 4-4-2005 - Appellant, by way of a reply stated that he was entitled to receive the new rate of Rs.482.45 per cu.m to provide GSB-Grading-1 as per the terms and conditions of contract - However, request was not considered favourably - Appellant filed a suit before HC to direct the respondent to pay Rs.1,97,61,768/- with interest and costs - Single Judge decree the suit in part - Hence, instant appeal - Appellant contended that description of item in sl no. 4 as granular sub base (SG Mix) was misconstrued and that SG Mix was a different from granular sub base and that work was one for granular sub base and that rate as shown in the figure at 165.24 per cubic meter could not be made applicable and in such a case, the new rate as offered by the appellant as 482.45 per cubic meter was liable to be paid -

Held, it was appellant, who quoted the rates for the granular sub base as Rs.165.24 per cubic meter - Appellant had not established that both granular SG Box and SG Mix were not one and the same and they differ from each other - Having entered into the agreement with eyes wide open, it was not open to appellant to make unilateral claim for higher amount - Under Ex.P3 the respondent clearly told the appellant that he has to complete the granular sub base work as per the provision contained in the MOST specifications - Even in the communication dt.24-11-2003 sent by appellant, it was clear that he has sought for new rate of Rs.482.45 per cubic meter to provide granular sub base Grade-I - There was no agreement between parties for said amount - Appellant could not rely upon the National Highways Work standards revision of rates, which did not have any application to instant case - Appellant had not executed any new item and the rate quoted by him was uniform throughout the contract - Single Judge considered the entire materials insofar as the said issue was concerned and declined the relief sought for - Appellant had not shown that work was completed belatedly only due to the delay caused by respondent - On the contrary, materials available on record would show that it was the appellant who was responsible for the same - Thus, even on that ground, appellant could not claim any relief - Appeal dismissed.

A. Vijayalakshmi vs Director of Employment and Training, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

S. Rasalam vs Commissioner, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

R. Kuppuswamy vs Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, High Court Campus, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]
Service - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, r. 49 - Posts and Telegraphs (Selection Grade Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1976 - Fixation of pay - Claim - Entitlement of - Petitioner (employee) filed an application before Tribunal, claiming fixation of pay and other benefits taking into account of the last drawn pay drawn in Higher Selection Grade-I pay - Tribunal by impugned order, dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was only asked to discharge the duties of Higher Selection Grade-I as a stop gap arrangement and since he had not completed three years regular service as Higher Selection Grade-I, he was not entitled for the relief - Aggrieved petitioner filed instant petition - Petitioner contended that as per Official Memorandum, petitioner was entitled for the relief sought for and that when there was no dispute that petitioner was discharging the work in the post of Higher Selection Grade-I Postmaster, the benefits due to him for said post could not be denied -

Held, perusal of clarification issued u/r. 49 of 1972 Rules would show that it did not have any bearing to instant case - Merely because, petitioner was asked to work in the position of Higher Selection Grade-I Postmaster, he would not get any benefits of the said post for the purpose of claiming fixation of pension and other retiral benefits - As per 1976 Rules an employee concerned was promoted to Higher Selection Grade-I only when he has got 3 years of service as in the cadre of Higher Selection Grade-II - Merely because the pay was available for the work done by the petitioner, it would not give any vested right - Admittedly, no order was issued giving any adhoc promotion to the petitioner by the competent authority viz., Circle Office - Mere order asking the petitioner to work in the vacancy of Higher Selection Grade-I cadre by way of local arrangement for functional necessity would not give any right - Petition dismissed.

S. Chandrasekar vs Secretary to Government-cum-Chairman of Tamil Nadu State Transport Undertaking, Transport (D) Department, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 13 Aug 2014]

Moulana vs State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Special Cell, Salem  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 12 Aug 2014]
Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ss. 8 r/w s. 13(2) r/w s. 13(1)(d), 7 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 482 - Bribe - Charge sheet - quashing of - Petitioner (A2) and other accused persons was charged for alleged offence u/ss. 8 r/w s. 13(2) r/w s. 13(1)(d) of the Act - Aggrieved petitioner filed instant petition u/s. 482 of CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings - Petitioner that when he was doing his B.Sc. Course (Hotel Management), respondent/Police inspected the Regional Transport Office, by means of surprise check on 7-1-2005 and 8-1-2005 respectively and seized Rs.1,44,106/- including the unclaimed amount of Rs.37,346/- together with certain documents from inside the Regional Transport Office and that after seizure of said money and documents, Police arrested the petitioner and 6 others on suspicion that they were Touts/Agents/Brokers with intend to get personal benefits by bribing the officials of the Regional Transport Office - Further contended that Police had not arrested any one of the officials from the said office and they had not implicated them as one of the Accused in charge sheet -

Held, it was to be borne in mind that once the examination of witnesses had commenced, a Court of Law was to continue the trial from day-to-day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined - Further, when Court grants an adjournment, it should record the special reasons - Word u/s. 8 of the Act 'whoever' was very wide - It applies to a private person, if he induces a public servant to do an act by corrupt or illegal means - Ordinarily, the Aiders/Abettors could also be dealt with along with the public servants in the trial of the main case - As a matter of fact, s. 8 was complimentary to s. 7 of the Act - In instant case, departmental action was recommended against Regional Transport Officer, Motor Vehicle Inspector and other staff of the office by IO in his final report - But, in respect of petitioner and others, charge sheet was filed on 19-4-2006 and also that, charges were framed in respect of A1 to A7 on 2-8-2006 u/s. 8 r/w s. 13(2) r/w s. 13(1)(d) of the Act - As against A3, Non Bailable Warrant was reportedly pending and main case stands posted to 28-8-2014 before Trial Court - The only mode of prosecuting the petitioner and other accused was by means of conducting the trial of the main case, as visualised under the Act - It was open to petitioner to approach Trial Court and seek for expediting the hearing of main case - Liberty was also granted to petitioner to raise all factual and legal pleas before Trial Court at the time of trial of main case - Petition disposed of.

C. Rajkumar vs Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District and another  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 12 Aug 2014]

R. Karuppan (Deceased) and others vs Ramasamy Mooper  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 12 Aug 2014]

K. Neelakandan vs Presiding Officer I Additional Labour Court, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Aug 2014]

Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam Division-II, Trichy District vs Rasammal  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Aug 2014]

Meyyappa Sundaram @ P. L. M. Sundaram vs Chidambaram and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Aug 2014]

T. Arindaran @ Baskaran vs Superintendent of Police Tiruvannamalai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Aug 2014]

M. Natarajan vs M. Vijayapandi and another  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Aug 2014]

Shanthi Nikethan Resident Welfare Association, Represented by its President, Madurai vs Saswath Foundation, Represented by its Managing Partner, A. Chandramouli and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Aug 2014]
Municipalities & Local Government - Electricity & Energy - Approved building plan - Electricity service connection - Legality - Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings in dt.30-11-2013, issued by respondent no. 1 and direct the respondent no. 1 to provide electricity connection in terms of the petitioner's application - Appellant (respondent no. 2) was impleaded in writ petition - Single Judge directed respondent no. 3 to verify all the documents produced by petitioner and make necessary inspection as per law and on his satisfaction, he might issue the safety certificate to enable the petitioner to get electricity service connection within a period of 6 weeks - Aggrieved appellant filed instant appeal - Appellant contended that approval granted by Corporation was not at all valid and authority which was competent, was only the Local Planning Authority, to whom, the petitioner did not approach for any approval till date and that after obtaining the permission from the Chief Electrical Inspector alone, the electricity service connection could be given, but the same was violated by writ petitioner - Writ petitioner had not even produced the permission alleged to be obtained by him, from Corporation and Single Judge had not considered the legal aspects involved in issue - Whether planning permission obtained by writ petitioner (respondent no. 1) from Corporation was valid or not, after the delegation of authority by Director of Town and Country Planning, by his proceedings dt.14-6-2010 -

Held, revised building plan approval given by Corporation on 30-6-2010, was valid - Single Judge while considering the issue before him, had gone into the materials available before him and found that it would be appropriate to direct the respondent no. 3 to verify the correctness of the documents to be produced by respondent no. 1, before giving electricity connection, which, had merits of acceptance - No doubt, Single Judge did not straightaway issue any direction to respondent no. 3 for providing electricity connection, but, he ordered the authority concerned, the respondent no. 3, to go through the veracity of the documents produced before by respondent no. 1 and thereafter, decide the issue as per law - Thus, Court found no substance in the arguments advanced by appellant, as he had not made out a case for interference at the hands of Court - Appeal dismissed.

(1) Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (CBE Divisional-II) Limited, Erode vs (1) Minor Gayathri Represented by Next Friend and Father Kamaraj; (2) Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Erode  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Aug 2014]
Carriers & Transportation - Motor accident - Compensation - Enhancement of compensation - Respondent (claimant/victim) filed a claim petition before Tribunal seeking compensation on account of disability suffered by her in motor accident - Tribunal by impugned award awarded Rs.3,02,400/- under the head of loss of earning power, in proportion to 56% disability suffered by the claimant/victim and a total Rs.6,74,400/- as awarded as compensation - Aggrieved appellant (Corporation) filed instant appeal on the ground that compensation amount awarded by Tribunal under different heads was extremely on the higher side - Dissatisfied with quantum of compensation, claimant filed Cross Objection, seeking enhancement of compensation amount -

Held, considering multiple fractures sustained by victim/claimant, Court did not find any infirmity in compensation amount awarded by Tribunal under the head of loss of earning power, by applying the multiplier method - Since victim/claimant was a minor girl, there was every possibility for her to recover from the disability to become normal, over the period of time - Thus, Court was not inclined to enhance the compensation amount under the head of loss of earning power, by fixing a sum of Rs.5,000/- as monthly income - Tribunal awarded of Rs.3,35,000/- under the head of medical expenses - Whereas, the medical bills were produced by claimant only for a sum of Rs.2,77,488/- - Thus, compensation amount of Rs.3,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was hereby reduced to Rs.2,77,488/- - Considering long duration of treatment undergone by the claimant/victim, a sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded by Tribunal for pain and sufferings could not be said to be adequate compensation - Thus, total compensation amount of Rs.6,74,400/- awarded by the Tribunal was hereby confirmed - Appeal dismissed.

Salem District Stage Dancer's Association Represented by its Secretary, S. P. Boopathy, Salem vs Commissioner of Police, Commissioner of Police office, Salem and another  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Aug 2014]

Anamalai Paper Mills Private Limited, Represented by its CEO Negin Peter, Kerala vs Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Represented by its Chairmain-cum-Managing Director K. Gnanadesikan I.A.S., Chennai and another  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Aug 2014]
Electricity & Energy - Practice & Procedure - Tamil Nadu Electricity Act, 2003, s. 56(2) - Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, cl. 17(9)(a) - Indian Electricity Act, 2003, s. 185 - Arrears/dues of erstwhile owner - Fresh connection - Denied - Justifiability - Petitioner filed instant petition for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by respondent no. 2 (Superintending Engineer) and to direct the respondents to grant new HT supply for the property in question, which was purchased by petitioner in an auction - Petitioner contended that cl. 17(9)(a) of the Code could not be pressed into service as the same did not have retrospective effect - Respondent (Board) contended it was empowered to collect the arrears of electricity consumption charges, if the services were to be availed by other parties in the same premises either by purchaser or transfer or in auction or on lease basis and in such cases the services would be effected only on clearance of the dues outstanding against such disconnected/dismantled services by intending consumers -

Held, when there were statutory rules or terms and conditions of supply which were statutory in character, authorize the supplier of electricity to demand from the purchaser of a property claiming reconnection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears due by the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier could recover the arrears from a purchaser - Contention of petitioner that cl. 17(9)(a) of the Code, having been inserted on 18-3-2011, could not be pressed into service with the retrospective effect, was not acceptable in terms of provisions of s. 185 of 2003 Act - In instant petition in, there was no challenge as regards the validity of any statutory provision so as to examine the contention as regards retrospectivity of cl. 17(9)(a) of the Code - It was to be noted that after impugned order was passed on 3-6-2013 demanding arrears of current consumption charges, BPSC and other charges, the petitioner by letter dt.27-3-2014, requested the authority to permit them to pay the arrears of current consumption charges being Rs.34,48,063/- in ten installments and requested for waiver of BPSC upto 21.04.2001, waive monthly minimum charges for notice period and special guarantee charge - In the circumstances, petitioner having accused themselves of the factual position, could not challenge the impugned order and take a different stand than they consciously taken by them in the letter, dt.27-3-2014 - Petitioner had not made out any case for interference - However, if petitioner was ready and willing to pay the arrears of current consumption charges, petitioner was permitted to remit the same in 5 equal installments - Petition dismissed.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs Madrasa E-Bakhiyath-Us-Salihath Arabic College, Vellore  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Aug 2014]

Lakshmi Narayanan @ Hari vs Thulasimani and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 08 Aug 2014]

(1) A. Babysabeena; (2) V. Ganesan vs State of Tamil Nadu, Represented, by its Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 08 Aug 2014]
Labour & Industrial Law - Administrative - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 14 - Fixation of notional benefits - Revise and refixation scale of pay - Denied - Justifiability - Appellants (petitioners) filed writ petitions challenging the GO dt.19-10-2007 and letter dt.5-9-2008 and consequently, for a direction to respondents to regularise the services of appellants from the date of completion of 10 years of Casual Labourer service and to revise and refix the scale of pay by arriving at a notional increment till the date of the said GO and to extend all consequential benefits - Single Judge by impugned judgment dismissed petitions by holding that impugned GO was a scheme framed by the Govt. in respect of qualified number of NMRs to be relaxed and have put in reckoned service thereafter and since a scheme of that nature had to be comprehensive scheme and the appellants were beneficiaries of scheme, and thus, they could not seek to improve upon the scheme by seeking the relief - Appellants contended that the were seeking only fixation of notional benefits consequent upon retrospective regularisation of their services on and after the completion of 10 years of service of NMR Casual Labourers on the basis of the impugned GO and that said GO was implemented in an improper manner only insofar as the appellants were concerned -

Held, perusal of impugned GO issued in respect of similarly placed persons based on the very same GO, it could be seen that contention of appellants that they were treated differently resulting in discrimination, was well founded - As rightly contended by appellants, what was sought for was only a notional fixation of pay retrospectively on completion of 10 years of their service without any monetary benefit, so that they would get their entire service period counted for the purpose of service benefits including the monetary benefits - Granting of such notional fixation of pay retrospectively without monetary benefit was not going to affect the Govt. in any way, especially when such benefit was given to other similarly placed persons numbering more than 600 as has was seen in referred proceedings - Single Judge failed to consider that aspect of discrimination and dismissed the petitions only on the reason that appellants having benefited by regularising of their service through impugned GO, could not seek to improve upon the scheme - Such finding of Single Judge was not correct in view of fact that appellants were not seeking to improve the scheme and on the other hand seek the benefit conferred to similarly placed persons based on the very same GO - Action of respondents in treating appellants differently was in violation of art. 14 of Constitution - Respondents were directed to notionally fix the pay of appellants retrospectively with effect from the date of completion of 10 years of service as NMRs, with monetary benefits from the date of GO, as it was extended to others in GO dt.15-6-2008 - Such exercise should be commenced and completed by respondents, within a period of 8 weeks - Appeals allowed.

Himayam Engineers and Builders, Represented by its Proprietor P. Ramna Reddy, Chennai vs (1) S. Ravichandran; (2) S. Veeraghavan; (3) R. Jagadeesan  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 08 Aug 2014]
Civil Procedure - Land & Property - Code of Civil Procedure, 108, O. 2 r. 2, O. 14 re. 2(1), 2(2) - Suit for specific performance - Farming of issues - Adjudication - Legality - Appellant (plaintiff) entered into a development agreement was entered defendant no. 3, who was the power of attorney agent of defendant nos. 1 and 2 Ex.P9 to develop four plots of land, filed a suit for declaration alleging that respondents were threatening to dispossess the appellant, and that agreement by defendants was illegal and invalid sought for a permanent injunction restraining defendants from preventing the plaintiff with the construction or development of suit property - Thereafter, a comprehensive suit was filed before HC seeking grant of specific performance of said development agreement and for permanent injunction against defendants - Single Judge by impugned judgment held that a suit for the same cause of action before the District Court, appellant was precluded from filing comprehensive suit on the same cause of action, in view of O. 2 r. 2 of CPC and suit was hit by the provisions of O. 2 r. 2 of CPC II thus, suit was liable to be dismissed -Meanwhile, suit filed before District Court, was dismissed as withdrawn - Aggrieved appellant filed instant appeal - Appellant contended that Single Judge did not permit the parties to go into the issue on bar of suit as envisaged under O. 2 r. 2 of CPC and no opportunity was given to appellant and that after reserving the judgment, an additional issue was framed and answered and that earlier, respondents filed 2 applications seeking to revoke the leave granted to appellant for institution of suit before Hc and for rejection of the plaint and both applications were dismissed on merit and that it was not open to Single Judge to go into that issue once again on the principles governing the issue of estoppel and constructive res judicata -

Held, a Trial Court had to frame a specific issue governing bar under O. 2 r. 2 of CPC and plaintiff should be given an opportunity to demonstrate that the cause of action in the subsequent suit was different - Said opportunity was not given in instant case - perusal of the order passed by Single Judge show that no appropriate discussion was made while holding that the suit was barred under O. 2 r. 2 of CPC, as mandated by SC - Decision to be rendered on the additional issue pertaining to the scope and applicability of O. 2 r. 2 of CPC would have substantial bearing on the other issues - In other words, based upon the said decision, Single Judge would have to decide as to whether the case would have to be proceeded by following the procedure as contemplated under O. 14 r. 2(1) or (2) of CPC, as the case might be - If Single Judge comes to the conclusion that the case would come under the purview of O. 2 r. 2(2) of CPC, then he might have an option to decide the additional issue first before proceeding to the other issues - In other words, the other issues would have to be decided based upon the decision to be rendered on the additional issue - However, it was cleared that Court leave it to Single Judge to decide as to whether the case on hand would come under O. 14 r. 2(1) or O. 14 r. 2(2), as the case might be - Impugned judgment and decree of single Judge was set aside and remit the suit for fresh consideration - Single Judge to should hear the parties and decide the additional issue framed on O. 2 r. 2 of CPC and thereafter decide the other issues in suit, further, dispose of the suit within a period of eight 8 weeks - Appeal allowed.

S. George vs Chief Conservator of Forest, Tamil Nadu Forest Department, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 08 Aug 2014]

Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer