PROJECT TOPICS

3YR. LL.B SEMESTER IV

SUBJECT- COMPANY LAW

S/NO NAME OF THE TOPICS

STUDENTS
1 STUDY THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS
REGARDING CONSTITUTION OF NCLT UNDER
DIPSHIKHA DUTTA,
PRANITA SHARMA 2013 ACT AND HOW NCLT WILL PERFORM
MONIKA PERIWAL BETTER UNDER THE NEW COMPANY REGIME
SPECIFICALLY IN CONTEXT OF MERGERS.

2 BINESH KUMAR CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE DOCTRINE OF

PRASAD, INDOOR MANAGEMENT
MERAJ ALAM
ANSARI,

3 DISCUSS THE ‘TURQUAND RULE’ WITH SPECIAL

CHAMPAK BISWAS, REFERENCE TO HOUGHTON & CO. V. NOTHARD,
KAJAL LOWEE AND WILLS LTD., (1927) ALL ER 97
MAHESHWARI,

4 KUNDAN MISHRA, ANALYSE THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR

MOHAN HEMBRAM, MISREPRESENTATION IN THE ARTICLES.
MUKUL AGARWAL

5 DISCUSS THE CONCEPT OF ‘SHARES’ WITH

SOURAV DAS, SPECIAL REFERENCE TO DHANANJAY PANDEY
KHUSHBOO V. DR. BAIS SURGICAL & MEDICAL INSTITUTE
SHARMA (P) LTD., (2005) 125 COMP CAS 626 CLB
ABHISHEK
AGARWAL

6 SHIRSHO MAKE A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE

DASGUPTA, SUJOY APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS OF A COMPANY.
ROY, ABDUS SALAM

7 CHOGEN LEPCHA, IS REGISTRATION FOR INCORPORATION

KAUSHAL SONI, COMPULSORY? DISCUSS
NINA ROY
8 SANGAY CHODEN DISCUSS THE CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF
BHUTIA, ‘PERPETUAL SUCCESSION’
DHANASHREE
NANDY
NEHA DUTTA,

9 A COMPANY IS AN ARTIFICIAL LEGAL PERSON:

SHRUTI KUMARI,
ABHISHEK PRASAD ANALYSE THE STATEMENT.
, ANKUR AGARWAL

10 MANAB BARMAN, CRITICALLY DISCUSS THE GROUNDS OF

APURBA SHANKAR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION.
PAUL, PARIKSHIT
KARMAKAR

11 DISCUSS THE PROCESS OF ALTERATION OF THE

HOSSAIN, ABHILASH OBJECT CLAUSE WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
MITTAL, PAPIYA INDIAN MECHANICAL GOLD EXTRACTING
GHOSH, COMPANY, RE, (1891) 3 CH 538
KRIPANJALI DAS

12 VIVEK KUMAR DISCUSS THE IMPORTANCE OF ARTICLES OF

CHOWDHURY, ASSOCIATION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
SANDEEP KUMAR LOCK V. QUEENSLAND INVESTMENT AND LAND
SAH, DHIRAJ
MORTGAGE CO., (1986) 1 CH 397
LAKHOTIA

13 SANCHARI BISWAS, , CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE PROCESS OF

PUSHKAR MANDAL FORMATION OF A COMPANY.
KAISHIK SINGHA
14 CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE CONCEPT OF
RASHI CHOUDHURY,
, NEHA DAS, NIKITA ‘CORPORATE VEIL’
SAH,

15 EARSHAD KHAN, DISCUSS THE CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF

PARLITA ‘PERPETUAL SUCCESSION.’
DEBGUPTA, RITESH
KANSAL
16 A COMPANY IS AN ARTIFICIAL LEGAL PERSON:
MASUD RANA,
PROBIN GUPTA, SAIF ANALYSE THE STATEMENT
ALI

17 CRITICALLY DISCUSS THE GROUNDS OF

RUPA SHIL, PALLABI
DAS, , MOHAMMAD CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION.
SHAHAMAT

18 ‘AN IMPORTANT STEP IN THE FORMATION OF A

DEBASRITA ROUTH, COMPANY IS TO PREPARE THE MEMORANDUM
RAKSHA SHARMA, OF ASSOCIATION’: ANALYSE
ANAMIKA BHAT

19 ‘DIRECTORS ARE AGENTS OF THE COMPANY’:

KAUSHIK KUMAR
BALA, PUJA RAY WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT DISCUSS
SARKAR, JAYOTIKA THE POWERS & DUTIES OF DIRECTORS.
GHOSH

KARUNA PRADHAN, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO FOSS V.

TUSHAR AGARWAL, HARBOTTLE, DISCUSS THE MINORITY RULE AS
ANNESA DE ESTABLISHED BY THE JUDICIARY

20 ABHILASHA ALICE MAKE A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF VOLUNTARY

KHONGSHEI WINDING UP.
ROUNAK PAUL,
DEBASHISH
MANDAL

21 AVIJIT MRIDHA, DISCUSS THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF

BIJAY PRASAD THE WINDING UP BY THE COURT.
GUPTA, SARABJIT
SINGH HORA

22 CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE CONCEPT OF

RASIDUL ISLAM, MD
HASMIM, RAHUL ‘CORPORATE VEIL’
GOYAL

23 AYUB HOSSAIN, WITH REFERENCE TO THE CHARACTERISTICS,

RASIDUL ISLAM, DISCUSS THE VARIOUS KINDS OF COMPANIES
CHONGTHAM AS RECOGNIZED BY LAW
KOROUHANBA
 RAJESH

24 ARNAB ADHIKARI, , DISCUSS THE ROLE PLAYED BY THE COMPANY

SATISH KUMAR LAW TRIBUNAL AND ITS RELEVANCE POST THE
VIVEK JANGRA, RECENT AMENDMENT.

25 THE RIGHTS OF SHAREHOLDERS ARE OF

PRIMARY IMPORTANCE IN A COMPANY:
DISCUSS WITH REFERENCE TO RELEVANT CASE
LAWS.

CRITICALLY ANALYSE VOLUNTARY WINDING

UP OF A COMPANY.

DRAW A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN

THE NECESSITY OF MEMORANDUM AND
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION.

‘DIRECTORS ARE AGENTS OF THE COMPANY’:

WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT DISCUSS
THE POWERS & DUTIES OF DIRECTORS.

SUBJECT- PROPERTY LAW

S/N NAME OF THE TOPICS
O STUDENTS
1 DIPSHIKHA DUTTA, DISCUSS THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND,
PRANITA SHARMA SCOPE AND OBJECT OF TRANSFER OF
MONIKA PERIWAL PROPERTY ACT, 1882.

2 CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE DEFINITION OF

‘IMMOVABLE PROPERTY’ AND ‘ACTIONABLE
BINESH KUMAR PRASAD,
MERAJ ALAM ANSARI, CLAIM’ UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,
1882 WITH THE HELP OF RELEVANT CASE
LAWS.

3 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CHARGE AND

CHAMPAK BISWAS,
KAJAL MAHESHWARI, MORGAGE.

4 KUNDAN MISHRA, “TRANSFERABILITY OF PROPERTY IS GENERAL

MOHAN HEMBRAM, RULE, ITS NON TRANSFERABILITY IS AN
MUKUL AGARWAL EXCEPTION”.-ANALYSE.

5 SOURAV DAS, ANALYSE THE ESSENTIALS OF A VALID

KHUSHBOO SHARMA TRANSFER.
ABHISHEK AGARWAL
6 SHIRSHO DASGUPTA, DISCUSS THE VALIDITY OF THE TRANSFER
SUJOY ROY, ABDUS MADE WITH CONDITION UNDER TRANSFER OF
SALAM PROPERTY ACT, 1882.

7 ANALYSE THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO

CHOGEN LEPCHA,
TRANSFER FOR THE BENEFIT OF AN UNBORN
KAUSHAL SONI, NINA
ROY PERSON IN THE LIGHT OF GIRJESH DUTT V.
DATTA DIN, AIR 1934 OUDH 35

8 “TRANSFER WHICH RENDERS PROPERTY

SANGAY CHODEN INALIENABLE FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD IS
BHUTIA, DHANASHREE DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST OF ITS
NANDY OWNER”.--ANALYSE THE STATEMENT IN THE
NEHA DUTTA, LIGHT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 OF
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882.

9 SHRUTI KUMARI, CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE PROVISIONS

ABHISHEK PRASAD RELATING TO VESTED AND CONTINGENT
, ANKUR AGARWAL
 INTEREST.

10 MANAB BARMAN, DISCUSS THE NATURE OF VESTED INTEREST IN

APURBA SHANKAR THE LIGHT OF RAJESH KANT ROY V. SMT.
PAUL, PARIKSHIT SHANTI DEBI , AIR 1997 SC 255
KARMAKAR

11 HOSSAIN, ABHILASH DISCUSS THE VALIDITY OF CONDITIONAL

MITTAL, PAPIYA GHOSH, TRANSFER UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY
KRIPANJALI DAS ACT, 1882.

12 VIVEK KUMAR ANALYSE THE ESSENTIALS OF A VALID

CHOWDHURY, SANDEEP TRANSFER.
KUMAR SAH, DHIRAJ
LAKHOTIA

13 “NO ONE CAN APPROBATE AND REPROBATE AT

SANCHARI BISWAS, ,
THE SAME TIME”-ANALYSE THE IMPORTANCE
PUSHKAR MANDAL
KAISHIK SINGHA OF THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION.

14 DISCUSS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

PROVISION OF TRANSFER OF OSTENSIBLE
RASHI CHOUDHURY, , OWNER UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,
NEHA DAS, NIKITA SAH, 1882 AFTER PASSING BENAMI TRANSACTION
(PROHIBITION OF RIGHT TO RECOVER
PROPERTY) ACT, 1988.

15 EARSHAD KHAN, CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE CONDITIONS PRE

PARLITA DEBGUPTA, REQUISITE FOR THE TRANSFER BY
RITESH KANSAL OSTENSIBLE OWNER.

16 CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE APPLICATION OF

THE PRINCIPLE OF FEEDING THE ESTOPPEL IN
MASUD RANA, PROBIN
GUPTA, SAIF ALI THE LIGHT OF DELHI DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY V. RAVINDRA MOHAN AGARWAL
AND ANOTHERS, AIR 1999 SC 1256

17 RUPA SHIL, PALLABI “DURING THE PENDENCY OF LITIGATION

DAS, , MOHAMMAD NOTHING NEW SHOULD BE INTRODUCED “-
SHAHAMAT ANALYSE THE OBSERVATION IN THE LIGHT OF
THE PROVISIONS GIVEN UNDER SECTION 52 OF
 TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882.

18 DEBASRITA ROUTH, ANALYSE THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE

RAKSHA SHARMA, FRADULENT TRANSFER UNDER TRANSFER OF
ANAMIKA BHAT PROPERTY ACT, 1882.

19 KAUSHIK KUMAR BALA, CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE DOCTRINE OF

PUJA RAY SARKAR, PART- PERFORMANCE.
JAYOTIKA GHOSH

KARUNA PRADHAN, ANALYSE THE DOCTRINE OF CLOG ON

TUSHAR AGARWAL, REDEMPTION WITH REFERENCE TO RELEVANT
ANNESA DE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS.

20 ABHILASHA ALICE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ENGLISH AND

KHONGSHEI ROUNAK INDIAN LAW RELATING TO DOCTRINE OF
PAUL, DEBASHISH PART-PERFORMANCE.
MANDAL

21 AVIJIT MRIDHA, BIJAY LAWS RELATING TO APPORTION IN TRANSFER

PRASAD GUPTA, OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882: A CRITICAL STUDY
SARABJIT SINGH HORA WITH REFERENCE TO CASE LAWS.

22 DOCTRINE OF NON-EST-FACTUM—
RASIDUL ISLAM, MD
HASMIM, RAHUL GOYAL DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION IN
ENGLAND AND IN INDIA.

23 AYUB HOSSAIN, CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE RIGHTS AND

RASIDUL ISLAM, LIABILITIES OF BUYER AND SELLER
CHONGTHAM
KOROUHANBA RAJESH

24 ARNAB ADHIKARI, , COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE RIGHTS AND

SATISH KUMAR DUTIES OF THE SELLER BEFORE AND AFTER
VIVEK JANGRA, SALE

25 RIGHT TO FORECLOSURE V. RIGHT TO SALE:

COMPARATIVE STUDY

26 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE RIGHTS AND

DUTIES OF THE BUYER BEFORE AND AFTER
SALE.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE RIGHTS AND

 LIABILITIES OF MORTGAGEE AND MORTGAGER

ANALYSE THE LIABILITIES AND RIGHTS OF

THE LESSOR.

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MORTGAGE BY

CONDITIONAL SALE AND ENGLISH MORTGAGE.

SUBJECT-LABOOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS II

S/NO NAME OF THE TOPICS

STUDENTS
1 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE
DIPSHIKHA DUTTA,
PRANITA SHARMA DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRADE UNION
MONIKA PERIWAL LAWS IN INDIA

2 “A TRADE UNION NEEDS TO GET

REGISTERED”: WITH REGARD TO THE
STATEMENT, DISCUSS THE PROCEDURE
FOR REGISTRATION OF A TRADE UNION
BINESH KUMAR
PRASAD,
MERAJ ALAM ANSARI,
BOKAJAN CEMENT CORP. EMPLOYEES’
UNION V. CEMENT CORP. OF INDIA

3 CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE FUNCTIONS OF

THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS

CHAMPAK BISWAS, NE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES’ UNION,

KAJAL MAHESHWARI,
GORAKHPUR V. DPTY. LABOUR
COMMISSIONER, GORAKHPUR
4 ‘A LIMITED RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM THE
DECISIONS OF THE REGISTRAR IS GRANTED
BY THE ACT’: DISCUSS

KUNDAN MISHRA,
MOHAN HEMBRAM,
MUKUL AGARWAL MUKAND IRON & STEEL WORKS LTD. V.G.
DESHPANDE, REGISTRAR OF TRADE
UNIONS, BOMBAY

5 CRITICALLY E6XAMINE THE IMMUNITIES

AVAILABLE TO A REGISTERED TRADE
UNION
SOURAV DAS,
KHUSHBOO SHARMA
ABHISHEK AGARWAL RAM SINGH & OTHERS V. M/S ASHOKA
IRON FOUNDRY & OTHERS

6 CEITICALLY ANALYSE THE JUDGMENT

DELIVERED IN STANDARD CHARTERED
SHIRSHO DASGUPTA,
SUJOY ROY, ABDUS BANK V. HINDUSTHAN ENGINEERING AND
SALAM GENERAL MAZDOOR UNION

7 CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE BENEFITS

AVAILABLE UNDER THE ESI ACT, 1948
CHOGEN LEPCHA,
KAUSHAL SONI, NINA
ROY
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESIC V. ABDUL RAUF
8 DISCUSS THE PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION
OF CLAIMS AND DISPUTES AS STATED
UNDER THE ESI ACT, 1948

SANGAY CHODEN
BHUTIA, DHANASHREE
NANDY KISHOR LAL V. CHAIRMAN, ESIC
NEHA DUTTA,

9 ANALYSE THE OBJECT AND SCOPE BEHIND

THE ENANCTMENT OF THE EPF ACT, 1952

SHRUTI KUMARI,
ABHISHEK PRASAD
, ANKUR AGARWAL SHRI MAHILA GRIH UDYOG LIJJAT PAPAD
V. UNION OF INDIA

10 EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME

AND AUTHORITIES: DISCUSS

MANAB BARMAN,
APURBA SHANKAR
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. KAMALA
PAUL, PARIKSHIT
KARMAKAR DEVI

11 CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE CHILD LABOUR

(PROHIBITION & REGULATION) ACT, 1986
HOSSAIN, ABHILASH
MITTAL, PAPIYA GHOSH,
KRIPANJALI DAS
RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD. V. STATE OF MP

12 VIVEK KUMAR THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT: AN OVERVIEW

CHOWDHURY, SANDEEP AND ANALYSIS OF ITS OBJECT AND
KUMAR SAH, DHIRAJ
 LAKHOTIA REASONS

SECRETARY, K.S. SANGAM LTD. V. C.

VARGHESE

13 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND TRADE

DISPUTES
SANCHARI BISWAS, ,
PUSHKAR MANDAL
KAISHIK SINGHA
TN ELECTRICITY WORKERS FEDERATION V.
MADRAS STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

14 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE

RASHI CHOUDHURY, , DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRADE UNION
NEHA DAS, NIKITA SAH, LAWS IN INDIA

15 “A TRADE UNION NEEDS TO GET

REGISTERED”: WITH REGARD TO THE
STATEMENT, DISCUSS THE PROCEDURE
FOR REGISTRATION OF A TRADE UNION
EARSHAD KHAN,
PARLITA DEBGUPTA,
RITESH KANSAL
BOKAJAN CEMENT CORP. EMPLOYEES’
UNION V. CEMENT CORP. OF INDIA

16 EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME

AND AUTHORITIES: DISCUSS

MASUD RANA, PROBIN

GUPTA, SAIF ALI UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. KAMALA
DEVI
17 CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE CHILD LABOUR
(PROHIBITION & REGULATION) ACT, 1986
RUPA SHIL, PALLABI
DAS, , MOHAMMAD
SHAHAMAT
RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD. V. STATE OF MP

18 THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT: AN OVERVIEW

AND ANALYSIS OF ITS OBJECT AND
REASONS
DEBASRITA ROUTH,
RAKSHA SHARMA,
ANAMIKA BHAT
SECRETARY, K.S. SANGAM LTD. V. C.
VARGHESE

19 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND TRADE

DISPUTES
KAUSHIK KUMAR BALA,
PUJA RAY SARKAR,
JAYOTIKA GHOSH
TN ELECTRICITY WORKERS FEDERATION V.
MADRAS STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

KARUNA PRADHAN, EMPIRICAL PROJECT TOPICS

TUSHAR AGARWAL,
ANNESA DE

20 STUDY AND ANALYZE THE FUNCTIONING

ABHILASHA ALICE OF TWO TRADE UNIONS PRESENT IN
KHONGSHEI ROUNAK
PAUL, DEBASHISH NORTH BENGAL REGION AS PER THE
MANDAL PROVISIONS OF THE TRADE UNIONS ACT,
1923.

21 AVIJIT MRIDHA, BIJAY A SURVEY ON NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

PRASAD GUPTA, BENIFITTED BY THE PROVIDENT FUND
SARABJIT SINGH HORA SCHEME IN ANY TWO PRIVATE CONCERNS.

22 RASIDUL ISLAM, MD A SURVEY ON THE DIFFERENT WAGE

HASMIM, RAHUL GOYAL STRUCTURE OF PERMANENT AND
TEMPRORARY MALE AND FEMALE
 EMPLOYEES WORKING IN ANY TWO TEA
ESTATE PRESENT IN NORTH BENGL
REGION.

23 AYUB HOSSAIN, A SURVEY ON NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT

RASIDUL ISLAM, PROVIDED TO THE YOUNG EMPLOYEE IN
CHONGTHAM ANY TWO MANUFACTURING UNIT
KOROUHANBA RAJESH PRESENT IN SILIGURI

24 A SURVEY ON THE ADHERENCE OF THE

ARNAB ADHIKARI, , PROVISIONS OF THE CHILD LABOUR
SATISH KUMAR (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT, 1986
VIVEK JANGRA, IN ANY TWO FACTORIES PRESENT IN
SILIGURI AREA.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

S/NO NAME OF STUDENTS TOPICS

1 DIPSHIKHA DUTTA, MONIKA VIDYACHARAN SHUKLA VS.

PERIWAL KHUBCHAND, AIR 1964 SC 1099

2 PRANITA SHARMA, KAJAL NANI GOPAL MITRA V. STATE OF

MAHESHWARI BIHAR, AIR 1970 SC 1636

3 BINESH KUMAR PRASAD, ANANT GOPAL V. STATE OF BOMBAY,

DHIRAJ LAKHOTIA AIR 1958 SC 915
4 KUNDAN MISHRA, MOHAN SHANKAR V. CHANDRAKANT, (1995) 3
HEMBRAM, SCC 413

5 ABHISHEK AGARWAL, MOOL CHAND V. DIRECTOR,

SOURAV DAS, CONSOLIDATION, (1995) 5 SCC 631

6 KHUSHBOO SHARMA, MADAN NAYAK VS. HANSUBALA

KAUSHAL SONI DEVI, AIR 1983 SC 676
7 SUJOY ROY, SHIRSHO CIT V. BOMBAY TRUST CORP., AIR
DASGUPTA 1930 PC 54

8 CHOGEN LEPCHA, ABDUS STATE OF U.P. VS. NAWAB HUSSAIN,

SALAM AIR 1977 SC 1680
9 SANGAY CHODEN BHUTIA, P.M.A. FOUNDATION V. MORAN MAR
DHANASHREE NANDY MARTHOMA, AIR 1995 SC 2001
10 ABHISHEK PRASAD, SHRUTI URMAO SINGH V. BHAGWATI SINGH,
KUMARI AIR 1956 SC 15

11 PARIKSHIT KARMAKAR, STATE OF TAMILNADU V.

ABHILASH MITTAL RAMALINGA SAMIGAL, AIR 1986 SC
794
12 MANAB BARMAN, PAPIYA LIC V. INDIA AUTOMOBILES & CO.
GHOSH AIR 1991 SC 884
13 MOHAMMAD SHAHAMAT KISHAN DAS VS. VITHOBA, ILR (1909)
HOSSAIN, APURBA SHANKAR 33 BOM 644
PAUL

14 SANDEEP KUMAR SAH, RAJASTHAN SRTC V. KRISHNA KANT,

, RAHUL GOYAL AIR 1995 SC 1715

15 SANCHARI BISWAS STATE OF HARYANA V. BIKAR SINGH,

RASHI CHOUDHURY AIR 2006 SC 2473
16 PRITAM GHOSH, PUSHKAR JADO RAI V. ONKAR PRASAD, AIR 1975
MANDAL ALL 413
17 INDIAN BANK V. MAHARASHTRA
STATE COOP. ,ARKETING
FEDERATION LTD., AIR 1998 SC 1952
18 NIKITA SAH, NEHA DAS LAXMIDAS VS. NANABHAI, AIR 1964
SC 11
19 KRIPANJALI DAS, DECILAL MODI V. STO, AIR 1965 SC
EARSHAD KHAN 1150
PARLITA DEBGUPTA, MASUD MAQBUL V. AMIR HASAN, AIR 1916 PC
RANA 136
20 PROBIN GUPTA, RUPA SHIL UDVAB SINGH VS. MADHAV RAO
SCINDIA (1977) 1 SCC 511
21 SAIF ALI, KAISHIK SINGHA SATYA V. TEJA SINGH, AIR 1975 SC 105

22 DEBASRITA ROUTH, TUSHAR RUPCHAND VS. RAGHUVANSHI (P)

AGARWAL LTD. AIR 1964 SC 1889
23 ANAMIKA BHAT, PUJA RAY LAKSHMISHANKAR V. YASHRAM
SARKAR, VASTA, AIR 1993 SC 1587

24 KAUSHIK KUMAR BALA, VINAYAK TRADING CO. VS SHAM

JAYOTIKA GHOSH SUNDER & CO., AIR 1987 AP 236

25 KARUNA PRADHAN, RAKSHA HIRALAL VS. LOONKARAN SETHIYA,

SHARMA, AIR 1962 SC 21
26 ROUNAK PAUL, DEBASHISH BALRAJ TANEJA V. SUNIL MADAN,
MANDAL AIR 1999 SC 3381

27 ANNESA DE, SARABJIT SINGH MARTIN BURN LTD. VS. BANERJEE,

HORA AIR 1958 SC 79
30 AVIJIT MRIDHA, , RASIDUL GURPREET SINGH V. CHARUR BHUJ,
ISLAM, AIR 1998 SC 400

31 GANGA BAI VS. VIJAY KUMAR, AIR

SATISH KUMAR 1974 SC 1126
BIJAY PRASAD GUPTA
32 GHYANSHAM DAS V. DOMINION OF
MD HASMIM, RASIDUL ISLAM
INDIA, AIR 1984 SC 1004
33 CHONGTHAM KOROUHANBA RUPCHAND VS. RAGHUVANSHI (P)
RAJESH, RITESH KANSAL, LTD. AIR 1964 SC 1889

34 ARNAB ADHIKARI, AYUB LAKSHMISHANKAR V. YASHRAM

HOSSAIN, VASTA, AIR 1993 SC 1587
35 , ABHILASHA ALICE VINAYAK TRADING CO. VS SHAM
KHONGSHEI, VIVEK JANGRA, SUNDER & CO., AIR 1987 AP 236

36