w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



APS Forex Services Private Limited v/s Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- APS FOREX SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67190DL2005PTC138875

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1996PTC078465

Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51311WB1955PTC022281

Company & Directors' Information:- A M FOREX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67190MH1998PTC116672

Company & Directors' Information:- S I FASHION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18204DL2006PTC157108

Company & Directors' Information:- V. S. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2012PTC233958

Company & Directors' Information:- LINKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U29212BR1959PTC000643

Company & Directors' Information:- G FASHION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17120DL2007PTC164098

    Criminal Appeal Nos. 271, 272 of 2020

    Decided On, 14 February 2020

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

    For the Appellant: Varinder Kumar Sharma, Parul Sharma, Shantanu Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Promod Kr. Sharma, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Advocates.



Judgment Text


M.R. Shah, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2020

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl. L.P. No. 258 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissed the said application for leave to appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court acquitting the original accused - respondents herein for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the N.I. Act') and thereby confirming the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.

Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2020

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl. L.P. No. 259 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissed the said application for leave to appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court acquitting the original accused - respondents herein for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the N.I. Act') and thereby confirming the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.

Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2020

2. According to the complainant, the appellant is in the business of sale and purchase of Foreign Exchange. That the original accused - respondents herein approached the appellant for issuance of Foreign Exchange Currency/USD Travel Currency Card. According to the original complainant - appellant herein, a total sum of Rs. 19,01,320/- was paid to the accused through VTM (Visa Travel Money Card) which came to be withdrawn by the accused on different days on 10.01.2014, 20.02.2014 and 22.02.2014. According to the complainant, the original accused -respondents herein paid Rs. 6,45,807/- only leaving a balance of Rs. 12,55,513/-. According to the complainant, the respondents accused issued four cheques total amounting Rs. 9,55,574/-, which were issued in favour of the complainant. However, all the aforesaid cheques when presented, came to be dishonoured. According to the complainant thereafter the respondents issued one another cheque bearing No. 374941 of Rs. 9,55,574/- of the partnership firm namely Shakti International in discharge of the legal liability. According to the complainant when the same cheque was presented the same came to be dishonoured due to "STOP PAYMENT" vide bank memo dated 02.06.2014. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice upon the original accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide notice dated 07.06.2014. Despite the service of the notice, the accused did not make the payment of the cheque amount. Therefore, the original complainant - appellant herein filed the complaint before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate also believed that the cheque was issued and the same was returned unpaid with remarks "STOP PAYMENT". The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate believed that the accused Sushil Kumar Sharma admitted his signature on the cheque. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate also believed receipt of the demand notice by the accused persons and non-payment towards the said cheque. However, thereafter Learned Metropolitan Magistrate observed and held that there is no legal liability as the payment through the card is not established and proved; that the payments are prior to the issuance of the card. Resultantly, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint by judgment and order dated 20.01.2017. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court acquitting the accused, the complainant preferred appeal before the Learned Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Court dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Thereafter the complainant filed the appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court. Hence, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case both the Learned Trial Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in acquitting the original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3.1 It is further submitted by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant - appellant herein that both the Courts below have not appreciated and/or considered the presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that both the Courts below have materially erred in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the accused had admitted issuance of the cheque as well as the signature on the cheque. It is submitted that therefore there is a presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the complainant. It is submitted that thereafter the onus would be upon the accused to rebut the presumption and for that, the accused has to lead the evidence. It is submitted that in the present case no evidence has been led on behalf of the accused to rebut the presumption. It is submitted that the presumption mandatory by Section 139 of the N.I. Act includes the presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability and therefore both the Courts below have materially erred in acquitting the accused. In support of the above, reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 and Kisan Rao vs. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165.

3.2 It is further submitted by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that even at the time of framing of the charge against the accused and when his statement was recorded, the accused had admitted that he had taken services of the Foreign Exchange and Travel Card. It is submitted that he had also admitted that he had made part payment in discharge of the said liability and some amount was remaining. It is submitted that therefore the accused was required to lead the evidence and prove that the entire amount due and payable has been paid. It is submitted that therefore in view of the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the Learned Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is submitted that therefore the High Court has erred in confirming the acquittal.

4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused.

4.1 It is vehemently submitted by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original accused that in the facts and circumstances of the case both the courts below have not committed any error in acquitting the accused.

4.2. It is further submitted that it is true that the cheque was issued, but the same was issued towards the security. It is submitted that as such the complainant misused the cheque to recover the dues of business from Ranger Export of India. It is submitted that there is a specific finding given by the Learned Trial Court that the complainant failed to prove the legal liability and/or the dues of the accused for which the cheque was issued.

4.3 It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the accused that in the present case the accused has rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and has demonstrated and proved that there was no legal liability and/or the dues, due and payable to the complainant.

4.4. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418, it is submitted that as held by this Court once there is probable defence on behalf of the accused, thereafter the burden shifts on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and other facts.

4.5 Making the above submissions and relying upon the cases, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at great length.

5.1 We have considered minutely the evidence on record, both oral as well documentary. We have also considered and gone through the judgment and order passed by the Courts below acquitting the respondents accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

5.2. What is emerging from the material on record is that the issuance of cheque by the accused and the signature of the accused on the said cheque are not disputed by the accused. The accused has also not disputed that there were transactions between the parties. Even as per the statement of the accused, which was recorded at the time of the framing of the charge, he has admitted that some amount was due and payable. However, it was the case on behalf of the accused that the cheque was given by way of security and the same has been misused by the complainant. However, nothing is on record that in the reply to the statutory notice it was the case on behalf of the accused that the cheque was given by way of security. Be that as it may, however, it is required to be noted that earlier the accused issued cheques which came to be dishonoured on the ground of 'insufficient funds' and thereafter a fresh consolidated cheque of Rs. 9,55,574/- was given which has been returned unpaid on the ground of "STOP PAYMENT". Therefore, the cheque in question was issued for the second time. Therefore, once the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque which bears his signature, there is presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. However, such a presumption is rebuttable in nature and the accused is required to lead the evidence to rebut such presumption. The accused was required to lead evidence that the entire amount due and payable to the complainant was paid.

6. On the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to and considered.

6.1 In the case of K.N. Beena vs. Muniyappan, (2001) 8 SCC 458, it is observed and held by this Court that under Section 118 of the N.I. Act, unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the negotiable instruments (including a cheque) had been made or drawn for consideration. It is further observed and held that under Section 139, the Court has to presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part, of a debt or liability. It is further observed that thus in complaints under Section 138, the Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability. This presumption is rebuttable. However, the burden of proving that the cheque has not been issued for a debt or liability is on the accused.

6.2 In the case of Rangappa (supra) again, this Court had an occasion to consider the presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. In the aforesaid decision, after considering other decisions of this Court on Section 118(a) and 139 of N.I. Act, it is observed and held that there exists a presumption which favours the complainant. It is further observed that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein there is existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. In Paragraph 27 this Court observed and has held as under:

"27. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant-accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof."

6.3 In the case of Kishan Rao (Supra) after considering the decision of this Court in the case of Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, it is observed and held that the accused may adduce evidence to rebut the presumption, but mere denial regarding existence of debt shall not serve any purpose. This Court in paragraph 19 of that judgment considered paragraph 14, 15, 18 & 19 of the decision in the case of Kumar Exports (Supra) as under:

19. This Court in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (Supra), had considered the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well the Evidence Act. Referring to Section 139, this Court laid down the following in paras 14, 15, 18 and 19:

"14. Section 139 of the Act provides that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

15. Presumptions are devices by use of which the courts are enabled and entitled to pronounce on an issue notwithstanding that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence. Under the Evidence Act all presumptions must come under one or the other class of the three classes mentioned in the Act, namely, (1) "may presume" (rebuttable), (2) "shall presume" (rebuttable), and (3) "conclusive presumptions" (irrebuttable). The term "presumption" is used to designate an inference, affirmative or disaffirmative of the existence of a fact, conveniently called the "presumed fact" drawn by a judicial tribunal, by a process of probable reasoning from some matter of fact, either judicially noticed or admitted or established by legal evidence to the satisfaction of the tribunal. Presumption literally means "taking as true without examination or proof".

****

18. Applying the definition of the word "proved" in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, it becomes evident that in a trial under Section 138 of the Act a presumption will have to be made that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable instrument is either proved or admitted. As soon as the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the instrument, say a note, was executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act help him shift the burden on the accused. The presumptions will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. A presumption is not in itself evidence, but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists.

19. The use of the phrase "until the contrary is proved" in Section 118 of the Act and use of the words "unless the contrary is proved" in Section 139 of the Act read with definitions of "may presume" and "shall presume" as given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, makes it at once clear that presumptions to be raised under both the provisions are rebuttable. When a presumption is rebuttable, it only points out that the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence, on the fact presumed and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed, the purpose of the presumption is over."

6.4 Now so far as the reliance is placed by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused on the decision of this Court in the case of Basalingappa (supra), on going through the said decision, we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the accused. In that case before this Court, the defence by the accused was that the cheque amount was given by the complainant to the accused by way of loan. When the proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act the accused denied the debt liability and the accused raised the defence and questioned the financial capacity of the complainant. To that, the complainant failed to prove and establish his financial capacity. Therefore, this Court was satisfied that the accused had a probable defence and consequently in absence of complainant having failed to prove his financial capacity, this Court acquitted the accused. In the present case, the accused never questioned the financial capacity of the complainant. We are of the view that whenever the accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant in support of his probable defence, despite the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act about the presumption of legally enforceable debt and such presumption is rebuttable, thereafter the onus shifts again on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and at that stage the complainant is required to lead the evidence to prove his financial capacity, more particularly when it is a case of giving loan by cash and thereafter issuance of a cheque. That is not a case here.

7. Coming back to the facts in the present case and considering the fact that the accused has admitted the issuance of the cheques and his signature on the cheque and that the cheque in question was issued for the second time, after the earlier cheques were dishonoured and that even according to the accused some amount was due and payable, there is a presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. Of course such presumption is rebuttable in nature. However, to rebut the presumption the accused was required to lead the evidence that full amount due and payable to the complainant has been paid. In the present case, no such evidence has been led by the accused. The story put forward by the accused that the cheques were given by way of security is not believable in absence of further evidence to rebut the presumption and more particularly the cheque in question was issued for the second time, after the earlier cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, both the courts below have materially erred in not properly appreciating and considering the presumption in favour of the complainant that there exists legally enforceable debt or liability as per Section 139 of the N.I. Act. It appears that both, the Learned Trial Court as well as the High Court, have committed error in shifting the burden upon the complainant to prove the debt or liability, without appreciating the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. As observed above, Section 139 of the Act is an example of reverse onus clause and therefore once the issuance of the cheque has been admitted and even the signature on the cheque has been admitted, there is always a presumption in favour of the complainant that there exists legally enforceable debt or liability and thereafter it is for the accused to rebut such presumption by leading evidence.

8. In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting the original accused - respondents herein for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The original accused -respondents herein are held guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. All the original

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

accused - respondents herein are therefore, convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Original Accused No.2 to 4 Respondent No.2 to Respondent No. 4 herein are sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo further one month simple imprisonment. The original accused -respondents herein are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 19,11,148/- to the original complainant by way of compensation to be paid within a period of eight weeks from today. 9. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2020 10. Now so far as this appeal arising out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Crl. L.P. No. 259/2018 arising out of the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Complaint No. 62/15 (new no. 613738/16) acquitting the original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is concerned, the only difference is with respect to the cheques amount. In the present case, four cheques each of Rs. 1,00,000/- were issued which came to be dishonoured. Except the cheques amount, there is no difference. 11. For the reasons stated in Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2020 which has been allowed today, this appeal is also allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as that of the trial Court acquitting the original accused - respondents herein for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The original accused -respondents herein are held guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. All the original accused - respondents herein are therefore, convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Original Accused No.2 to 4 - Respondent No.2 to Respondent No. 4 herein are sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo further one month simple imprisonment. The original accused -respondents herein are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-to the original complainant by way of compensation to be paid within a period of eight weeks from today.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

20-07-2020 M/s. SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt. Ltd., Haryana Versus Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, West Bengal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-07-2020 BSA Citi Courier Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax Delhi West & Another High Court of Delhi
29-06-2020 Aakash Educational Services Ltd. Versus Sahib Sital Singh Bajwa & Others High Court of Delhi
26-06-2020 Arshleen Grewal Versus Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, Punjab & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-06-2020 Dr. S. Anusha Versus The Director of Medical and Health Services, Teynampet, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-06-2020 Pro Interactive Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commisioner of Central Goods & Services Tax Delhi South & Another High Court of Delhi
16-06-2020 M/s. Sbi Cards & Payments Services Ltd., New Delhi Versus Vishal Sabharwal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-06-2020 Goods & Services Tax Network, New Delhi & Others Versus M/s. Leo Distributors, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
01-06-2020 Aditya Birla Money Limited, Rep. By its Head – Legal & Compliance, L.R. Murali Krishnan Versus The National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Investors Services Cell, Kotturpuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Dr. G. Gowthaman Versus The Joint Director, Medical & Rural Health Services, Tiruppur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-05-2020 The Management of M/s. Recipharm Pharma Services Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Assistant General Manager Versus G. Vasanthkumr & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-05-2020 B. Abimathi Versus The Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-04-2020 Mahadeo Construction Co. at Chhatarpur, Palamau Through its partner Anil Kumar Singh Versus The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
20-04-2020 M/s. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Versus Vedanta Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
08-04-2020 N. Rajagopal Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-04-2020 In Re : COVID 19 - Relief & Services at the Andaman & Nicobar Islands High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-03-2020 Carewell Security Services Private Limited Versus Employees Provident Fund Organization High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
17-03-2020 Aman Bhatnagar Versus Falcon Reality Services P. Ltd. & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
11-03-2020 M/s. Chase Security Services, through its proprietor Ravindra Prabhakar Sawant & Another Versus State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, Goa Secretariat & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
09-03-2020 Citi-financial Retail Services India Ltd., Rep. by its Assistant Manager-Collections J. Srikumar Versus Dove Finance Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 In The Matter of:D & I Taxcon Services Private Limited Versus Vinod Kumar Kothari, Liquidator of Nicco Corporation Limited National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
02-03-2020 Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ankur Jain & Others High Court of Delhi
02-03-2020 The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VII Commissionerate, Chennai V/S M/s. Sea Queen Shipping Services (P) Ltd., Adyar, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Vasant Mishrilal Parakh & Others Versus TATA Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 M/s. Padmavathi Hospitality & Facilities Management Services, Rep. by its Partner & Authorized Representative Pradeep Kanumuri & Another V/S The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 M/s. Techno Global Services Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-02-2020 M/s. ASR Dredging Services Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Kochi Versus M/s. Chennai Post Trust, Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 M/s. Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd., Manjeri & Others Versus Muhammed Riyas. P, Kismath Manzil, Thurakkal, Manjeri & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
27-02-2020 World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. & Others Versus Rajiv Negandhi West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-02-2020 M. Muthusamy Versus The Director of Medical and Rural Services, DMS Compound, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 M/s. Millions Fashion, Chennai Versus The Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. V/S SKIL Infrastructure Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-02-2020 TEK Systems Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Naveen Kumar Mamidala High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-02-2020 Assistant Divisional Officer, Kerala Fire & Rescue Services, Kozhikode & Others Versus Vijayalakshmi & Others High Court of Kerala
11-02-2020 Anupam Basu & Another Versus M/s. A 2 Services & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
11-02-2020 Shouvik Bhattacharya Versus A2 Services & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
11-02-2020 M/s. Anusha Enterprises Rep.by its Managing Partner C.K.Nafrasimha Rao, Chennai Versus Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy General Services Organisation Kalpakkam & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 The Chairman and Managing Director, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services & Another Versus Antara Majumdar & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
31-01-2020 Verizon Data Services India Private Limited, Rep. by its Director, S. Ramakrishnan, Chennai Versus The Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 Sanjay K Balan & Another Versus The Manager, Customer Services/Correspondence Depdt., SBI, Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd., Haryana Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
28-01-2020 M/s. Daimler Financial Services India Private Ltd., Chennai & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
28-01-2020 M.S. Marketing Services, Salem, Represented by its Proprietor M. Satya Versus The District Revenue Officer / General Manager The Salem District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited Sithanoor, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 M/s. Daimler Financial Services India Private Ltd., Chennai & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
28-01-2020 Premchand Ambadas Hanswar Versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Deputy Director of Health Services, Akola In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
24-01-2020 M/s. DTT Financial Services (P) Ltd., Chennai, Represented by its Director, Usha Subramaniam Versus N. Uttam Kumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 Valliyara Trading & Services (Pvt.) Ltd. & Another Versus M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Egmore, Chennai & Another High Court of Kerala
23-01-2020 Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Kochi, Represented by Its Asst. General Manager-HR, Boban Varghese Thomas & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Labour & Welfare Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
23-01-2020 P. Ramesh Versus The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 Tata Consultancy Services Limited, TCS Centre, Kochi, Represented by Its Asst. General Manager-HR, Boban Varghese Thomas & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Labour & Welfare Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
20-01-2020 Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services Versus Siti Cable Network Limited High Court of Delhi
13-01-2020 The Principal , Global Institute of Fashion Technology (GIFT) & Another Versus Bikramadittya Sai & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
10-01-2020 M/s. Kotec Automative Services India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Chung Lee Yoon, Sriperumbudur Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 M/s. Prime Gold International Limited, Represented by its Director Achin Aggarwal & Another Versus The Additional Director General, The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Coimbatore Zonal Unit, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-01-2020 Oil India Limited, Assam Versus Asian Oil Field Services Limited & Another High Court of Gauhati
20-12-2019 Manjeet Kapoor Proprietor M/s. Manjeet Plastic Industries, New Delhi Versus Tamil Nadu Textbook and Educational Services Corp. Chennai, Tamil Nadu High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-12-2019 Indo Arab Air Services Versus ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
13-12-2019 Value Advisory Services Versus M/s. ZTE Corporation High Court of Delhi
12-12-2019 Moets Catering Services Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Bindra Versus Dr. Ambedkar International Center & Others High Court of Delhi
11-12-2019 P. Natarajan Versus The Joint Director of Medical & Rural Health Services, Tiruppur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 The General Manager, Indian Institute of Emergency Medical Services, Noya Plaza, Kalathippadi, Kottayam Versus Anees Benny, Vaniyakizhakkel veedu, Thodupuzha Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-12-2019 M/s. Shriram Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. A.N. Traders Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
03-12-2019 Starlight Real Estate (Ascot) Mauritius Limited & Another Versus Jagrati Trade Services Private Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-11-2019 The Director Postal Services, Central Region (Kerala Circle), Kochi & Others Versus Elizabeth Peter High Court of Kerala
26-11-2019 The State Head Operations, GVK Emergency Management and Research Institute (EMRI), 108 Ambulance Services, Behind Labour Commissioner's Office, DMS Compound, Teynampet Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Head Quarter), DMS Campus, Teynampet & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 Rambo Fashion Limited Versus Board of Directors, State Bank of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-11-2019 The Registrar, National Institute of Fashion Technology, N.I.F.T. Campus, Taramani, Chennai & Another Versus Sam D. Raja Prabhu & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-11-2019 M/s. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kerla Water Authority High Court of Kerala
14-11-2019 The State of Maharashtra & Others Versus M/s. Jasubhai Business Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Excel Realtors Ltd.) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-11-2019 M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director & Another Versus The Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services rep. by its Secretary, Kadapa & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-11-2019 SIC Stocks & Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
04-11-2019 Food Corporation of India Versus National Collateral Management Services Limited (NCMSL) Supreme Court of India
01-11-2019 Subhashish Paul, Superintendent, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST), Dibrugarh Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
31-10-2019 M/s. Libord Finance Ltd. Versus Sharpmind Consultancy Services National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-10-2019 M. Philomine Raj Selestine, Postal Assistant, Dindigul Versus Union of India, Rep. Director of Postal Services, Tamil Nadu Circle, Madurai & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
31-10-2019 Sharpmind Consultancy Services & Others Versus M/s. Libord Finance Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-10-2019 Rina Samaddar & Another Versus M/s. Solace ManagementConsultancy Services (P) Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-10-2019 Jitender Kumar & Others Versus Directorate Of Health Services Govt of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
17-10-2019 Premier Capital Services Ltd. & Others Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
16-10-2019 The Official Liquidator High Court, Chennai Versus M/s. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-10-2019 M/s Fortune Automobiles (India) Pvt., Ltd., (Ford authorized sales and services dealers), Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.Nirva Modi & Others Versus Bandi Venu Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
14-10-2019 Inspira IT Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-10-2019 Less Than Equals Three Services Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Paras Mehra & Others High Court of Delhi
27-09-2019 First Financial Services Ltd. & Others Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
27-09-2019 N.K. Senthamarai Kannan, IPS Member Secretary / IG of police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Chairman (DG), Chennai Versus High Court of Madras, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2019 Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd, Perinthalmanna Versus K. Jayaprakash & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
24-09-2019 A.P. Subramaniam Versus The Joint Director of Health Services, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-09-2019 K. Pooranachandran Versus Union of India, Rep. by the Director of Postal Services, Southern Region (TN), Madurai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2019 K. Senthilkumar Versus The General Manager, Recovery Monitoring & Legal Services, Bank of Maharashtra, Central Office, Pune & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2019 S. Seethalakshmi Versus The Joint Director of Health Services, Kancheepuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-2019 XXXX Versus Member Secretary Karnataka State Legal Services Authority High Court of Karnataka
13-09-2019 APM Air Cargo Terminal Services & Another Versus Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Private Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
13-09-2019 Sbicap Trustee Company Ltd. Versus IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited High Court of Karnataka
13-09-2019 The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Services Department, Bengaluru Others Versus N. Krishna Reddy, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
12-09-2019 Nirmal Kanti Mitra, Superintendent, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST), Dibrugarh Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
10-09-2019 M/s. SLK Contract Services, Represented by its Managing Partner, S. Levakumar, Chennai Versus The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2019 Techno Consultancy Services, Rep. by Proprietor, Chennai Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner CT, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2019 Supreme Laundry Services JV (Pvt) Ltd. Versus Union of India, Indian Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi rep. by Member Secretary & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-09-2019 Earnest Business Services Private Limited VersusThe Government of the State of Israel, through the Consul General of Israel High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-08-2019 Subramanian Versus The Joint Director Medical & Rural Health Services, Nagerocil, Kanyakumari & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court