Anil Ramesh Dave was born on November 19, 1951, is the current Executive-Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority and a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. He served as Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Bombay High Court before being appointed to the Supreme Court of India. He was even awarded a National Scholarship for a Master’s Degree in Law.

On July 25, 1976, he became an advocate and began practising in a variety of areas. He was a Solicitor for the Gujarat Government, an Additional Government Pleader to the Gujarat High Court, and a part-time Lecturer at Sir L.A. Shah Law College. On September 18, 1995, he was appointed as an Additional Judge to the Gujarat High Court, and on June 18, 1997, he was confirmed as a Permanent Judge. He was then appointed Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on January 7, 2008. He was the Patron and Chairman of the Advisory Council of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR), Regional Centre, Hyderabad, and Chancellor of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, while serving as Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature in Hyderabad. On 11 February 2010, he was transferred to the Bombay High Court, then on 30 April 2010, he was elevated to the Supreme Court of India as a Judge. On November 19, 2016, he stepped down as a Supreme Court of India judge.

Justice Dave was appointed as the Bombay High Court’s 38th Chief Justice. At Raj Bhavan, Governor K Sankaranarayanan administered the oath of office to 58-year-old Justice Dave. Swatanter Kumar, the previous Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, was elevated to the Supreme Court last December, and Justice J N Patel has been acting Chief Justice since then. The event was attended by Chief Minister Ashok Chavan, Minister for Protocol Suresh Shetty, Acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court Jay Narayan Patel, and other Bombay High Court Judges.

Some of the landmark judgements given by Justice Anil Ramesh Dave are-

1. Amrik Singh vs Dcb Bank Ltd And Anr on 6 April, 2022
Ghanta Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.7 was decided by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. After reviewing all of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, it was determined that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution can be filed against an Asset Reconstruction Company. In Writ Appeal No. 412 of 2008 on MANU/AP-0004/2008 15 of 19 24.09.2009, a Division Bench comprised of Justice Anil Ramesh Dave and Justice R. Subhash Reddy confirmed the stated decision. SLP(C) No. 012697 of 2010 brought against the said verdict was rejected on 07.05.2010, confirming the Division Bench’s ruling.

2. Re Exploitation Of Children In … vs Union Of India on 8 March, 2016
This writ petition was filed in response to an article published on July 4th, 2007 in the Hindi daily “Hindustan” (Lucknow Edition). Ms. Anjali Sinha wrote the paper, which is titled “Orphanage or Places for Child Abuse” in the English translation. The article, along with a letter, was forwarded to this Court by one A.S. Choudhury, and this is the origin of this petition, which was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on September 10, 2007. To assist this Court, Ms. Aparna Bhat has been nominated as an Amicus Curiae. To begin, we must applaud Ms. Aparna Bhat’s unwavering and great efforts in providing aid in this situation over the last ten years.

3. Jeans Knit Private Ltd. Bangalore vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income … on 24 November, 2014
The assessee, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting readymade garments and job works, filed its income tax return for Assessment Year 2011-12 on September 27, 2011, declaring total income of Rs.6,01,06,300/- after claiming a deduction of Rs.42,65,47,075/- under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The case was reviewed, and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by decision dated March 24, 2014, determining the assessee’s income to be Rs.48,66,53,376/-. This was owing to the assessee’s claim for a deduction under section 10B of the Act being denied because the Assessing Officer (AO) believed the assessee company was founded by reconstructing an existing business using old plant and machinery for this purpose.

4. Raj Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 18 November, 2016
These Special Leave Appeals arise from the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s common judgement dated 30.01.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 & Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008, by which the High Court dismissed the appellant’s Criminal Appeal and partly allowed Bharat Singh’s Criminal Revision qua Raj Singh, thereby converting the appellant’s conviction under Section 304 Part 1 IPC to Section 302 IPC and thereby converting the appellant’s conviction.

5. Karuppaiah vs R. Palanivel on 18 November, 2016
The Revision Petitioners are the tenants. In H.R.C.O.P.No.9 of 2005, the landlord / respondent filed a petition for eviction against the tenants / Revision Petitioners herein under Section 10 (3) (C) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), i.e., for more accommodation. The petition was granted, and the tenants were ordered to vacate the premises and hand over control within a month. The renters challenged the decision and filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2007, which was dismissed, giving the occupants two months to depart and hand over possession. The tenants have filed a Civil Revision Petition to overturn this decision.


Image Source: The Hindu

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.


Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at

In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: