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



Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited v/s M/s. R.S. Sales Corporation & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = L17199GJ1956PLC001107

Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L01132WB1919PLC003334

Company & Directors' Information:- SALES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29191GJ1985PTC007880

Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2012PLC231460

Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA AND COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107RJ2004PTC019073

Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51395OR2006PTC009081

Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52500PN2011PTC141415

Company & Directors' Information:- R.S. SALES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109UP1988PTC009892

    CS(COMM). No. 644 of 2016

    Decided On, 10 July 2018

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

    For the Plaintiff: Ajay Sahni, Kritika Sahni, Advocates. For the Defendants: B.P. Singh Dhakray, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, rendition of accounts, etc. The prayer clause in the suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"32. The Plaintiff prays:-

(i) For an order for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their proprietor/.partners/directors, as the case may be, principal officers, servants, retailers, stockiest, distributors, representatives and agents from manufacturing itself, permitting others to manufacture on its behalf, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in clothing, footwear, headgear or any other allied and cognate goods under the impugned trade mark PETER ENGLAND or any other trade mark which incorporates or contains the registered trade mark PETER ENGLAND of the plaintiff or any other trade mark/marks which are deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said registered trade mark PETER ENGLAND amounting to infringement of the registered trade mark PETER ENGLAND of the plaintiff registered under No.665416 in class-25.

(ii) For an order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendants by manufacturing and selling their products containing and/or incorporating the impugned infringing trade mark PETER ENGLAND.

(iii) For an order for delivery for purposes of destruction of all impugned cartons, boxes, wrappers, dies, labels, advertising material, blister packs, footwear, etc. and any other infringing copies or media used by the defendants in pursuit of their illegal activities.

(iv) For costs in the proceedings."

2. Vide order dated 17th June, 2013, the learned predecessor of this Court had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The relevant portion of the ex-parte injunction order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"After having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and going through the plaint and the accompanying documents, I am of the view that the plaintiff has been able to make out a case for grant of interim injunction. I am also of the view that if the interim injunction is not granted ex parte the very purpose of granting this relief would be defeated.

So, issue notice of this application also to the defendants for 5th September, 2013 and it is further ordered that till further orders the defendants are restrained from selling/marketing its products by using the mark/name 'PETER ENGLAND'."

3. The ad-interim order was confirmed on 28th July, 2016 till the disposal of the suit.

4. The relevant facts of the present case are that the plaintiff is the flagship company of the Aditya Birla Group of Companies and is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘PETER ENGLAND’ under registration No.665416 in class-25, in respect of clothing, footwear and headgear in India since 1997, as also in several other countries of the world.

5. It is averred in the plaint that the trademark ‘PETER ENGLAND’ was originally conceived and adopted more than a century ago, i.e., in the year 1889, by the plaintiff’s predecessor, Carrington Viyella Garments Limited (CVGL), England. It is asserted that the said company underwent a series of corporate adjustments and changes during the course of time. It is stated that the 'PETER ENGLAND' trademark was assigned by an assignment deed dated 21st January, 2000 in favour of the plaintiff (then known as Indian Rayon & Industries Limited). It is further averred that subsequently, the plaintiff’s name was changed to Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited and an application for recording the change in name was filed with the office of the Registrar of Trade Marks on 24th November, 2006. It is stated that the plaintiff had also applied for the registration of the trademark ‘PETER ENGLAND’ in respect of other classes, which are pending. The plaintiff has further averred in the plaint that apart from the trademark ‘PETER ENGLAND’, the plaintiff is also the proprietor of several other trademarks, which incorporate the trademark ‘PETER ENGLAND’.

6. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had filed two applications on 03rd September, 2001 for registration of the trademarks ELEMENTS PETER ENGLAND (label) and PETER ENGLAND (label) under registration nos. 1041517 and 1041520 in class-25 and these trademarks were published in the Trade Mark Journal No.1331 (S-1) dated 15th June, 2005.

7. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant No. 1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling footwear and defendant No. 2 is defendant No. 1’s stockist and the said defendants sell, inter alia, footwear under the trademark ‘PETER ENGLAND VIP SHOES’.

8. It is stated in the plaint that despite repeated reminders and objections raised by the plaintiff, to the adoption and use of its registered trade mark 'PETER ENGLAND', by defendant No.1, the plaintiff noticed in the last week of March, 2012 that the defendant No.1 had continued selling its infringing goods in Kerala. It is stated that the plaintiff filed a civil suit No.OS 4/2012 in the Court of District Judge, Manjeri, Kerala and even after the lapse of twelve months from the date of institution of the suit, the defendant No.1 had evaded service of summons and had started selling its products in other jurisdictions.

9. It is stated that in the second week of June, 2013 the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 had started selling its infringing footwear in Delhi and the plaintiff was able to purchase one such infringing product from the premises of defendant No.2.

10. It is stated in the plaint that the defendants were using an identical trade mark, i.e., ‘PETER ENGLAND’, as the primary and dominant part of its trade mark and the use of the suffix of VIP SHOES below the said trade mark 'PETER ENGLAND' in a much smaller font, did not diminish the deceptive similarity of the said infringing mark of the defendants to that of the plaintiff. A pictorial representation of the marks of the plaintiff and defendants is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'IMAGE'

11. On 04th May, 2018, the present suit had been listed for framing of issues. Learned counsel for defendants suggested that the following issues arise for consideration:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff is not the registered owner of the trademark PETER ENGLAND, as its pedigree is allegedly incomplete?

(ii) Whether the validity of the plaintiff’s trademark registration is open to challenge by the defendants?

(iii) What is the effect of a copyright registration by the defendants, of its brand PETER ENGLAND VIP SHOES?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief as the plaintiff is only involved in the business of apparel, while the defendants are involved in the business of shoes?

12. Since this Court was of the prima facie opinion that the defendants had no plausible defense and none of the issues suggested by the defendants arose for consideration, the matter was heard at length.

13. Learned counsel for the defendants stated that the PETER ENGLAND logo is registered in the name of Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. He stated that the plaintiff’s Form TM-33, seeking substitution of the name of the proprietor, which was filed on 24th November, 2006, is still pending consideration. He stated that the defendant No.1 started using the brand PETER ENGLAND VIP SHOES on 11th May, 1998 and filed an application bearing No. 805051 in class-25 for registration of the trademark PETER ENGLAND VIP SHOES on 08th June, 1998. He stated that the same had been advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No.1401 dated 01st October, 2008 and is still pending. He stated that the defendant No.1 has also filed oppositions to two trademark registration applications filed by the plaintiff, for registration of the trade marks ELEMENTS PETER ENGLAND (Label) and PETER ENGLAND (Label) on the ground that it was the proprietor of the trademark PETER ENGLAND (along with the suffix VIP SHOES) and the same are still pending

14. Learned counsel for the defendants stated that on 01st July, 2000 the defendant No.1 had applied for registration of its copyright in the brand PETER ENGLAND VIP SHOES and was allotted the same on 20th August, 2001. He stated that the search report, dated 27th June 2000, conducted by Mr. T.R. Subramaniyam, Joint Registrar of the Trade Marks Central Building Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 020, revealed that no trademark identical with or deceptively similar to the artistic work of the defendants had been registered under the Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. He stated that subsequently, a certificate under Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 had been issued by the Govt. of India Trade Marks Registry. He stated that in view of defendants' existing copyright registration, with regard to the mark and artistic work PETER ENGLAND VIP SHOES, it had propriety rights in the trademark PETER ENGLAND VIP SHOES.

15. Learned counsel for the defendants contended that there is no infringement of the plaintiff’s registered mark PETER ENGLAND in terms of Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as the defendants are not engaged in the same business as the plaintiff, i.e. of clothing, readymade garments, apparels, headgear etc., but are only engaged in manufacturing/fabrication of different brands of shoes. He stated that the defendant No.1 had advertised its business for shoes, slippers, chappals, sandals, etc. since 1999 and the defendant No. 1 had established itself as a market leader in the field of footwear, under the brands PETER ENGLAND VIP SHOES, LONDON VIP SHOES, ENGLISH QUEEN and ROYAL MAN.

16. Learned counsel for the defendants emphasized that although the plaintiff’s mark PETER ENGLAND is registered under class-25 of Trade Marks Act, 1999, for clothing, footwear and headgear, the plaintiff is not engaged in the business of sale of shoes.

17. At the outset, learned counsel for plaintiff stated that no issue arose for consideration. He confined his relief to prayers 32 (i) and (iv) of the plaint. The statements made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff were accepted by this Court and the plaintiff was held bound by the same.

18. Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. was the earlier name of the plaintiff company and the plaintiff had filed a Fresh Certificate of Incorporation dated 27th October, 2005, proving the same. He further stated that due to change in name, the plaintiff filed Form TM-33, for change of the registered proprietor’s name from Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. to M/s Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., as a formal intimation to the Trade Marks Registry regarding the same. He contended that the rights of the plaintiff already stood established even in the absence of any formal order passed by the Trade Marks Registry. He stated that the plaintiff’s registration, with regard to the trademark ‘PETER ENGLAND’, is still valid and subsisting. He stated that the defendants’ trademark application claims user since 1998, while the plaintiff had been using the mark PETER ENGLAND since 1997, at least.

19. He stated that the plaintiff is the prior user and adopter of the trademark PETER ENGLAND and its artistic label. He stated that the defendant No.1 had fraudulently obtained a certificate under Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957, in regard to the artistic work PETER ENGLAND, by suppressing the fact that the defendant No.1 had copied the prior published artistic label PETER ENGLAND of the plaintiff. He stated that the Registry issued the aforesaid certificate, in error, without notice to the plaintiff and the same would not entitle the defendants to any rights in the infringing trademark/ artistic work. He stated that no public notice was issued for an application for copyright registration and that the plaintiff had challenged the defendants’ copyright registration and the same is pending adjudication before the Copyright Appellate Board.

20. The present suit is at the stage of framing of issues. In the opinion of this Court, the defense sought to be adopted by the defendants is contrary to admitted facts, untenable in law and is not relevant or necessary for deciding the controversy involved in the present suit. Consequently, this Court is not bound nor would it be justified to frame an issue on such unnecessary or baseless pleas as propounded by the defendants, which would only cause unnecessary and avoidable inconvenience to the parties and waste valuable time of the Court.

21. This Court in Zulfiquar Ali Khan & Ors. vs. Straw Products Limited & Ors. 2000 (56) DRJ (Suppl) 590 has held as under:

'If a plea is not valid and tenable in law or is not relevant or necessary for deciding the controversy involved, the would not be bound and justified in framing issue on such unnecessary or baseless pleas, thereby causing un-necessary and avoidable inconveniences to the parties and waster of valuable court time.'

22. Detailed reasons for not framing any of the issues suggested by the defendants are as under:-

Issue 1: Whether the plaintiff is not the registered owner of the trademark 'PETER ENGLAND' , as its pedigree is allegedly incomplete?

23. On a perusal of the file, this Court finds that the plaintiff has filed its original Legal Proceeding Certificate for its registered trademark 'PETER ENGLAND' in class 25 dated 22nd August, 2017, which is renewed upto 12th May, 2025. Since the Legal Proceeding Certificate names the plaintiff, i.e. Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited, as the owner of the aforesaid mark, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark 'PETER ENGLAND' and possesses all rights and title over the aforesaid mark. This Court is further of the view that the defendants have not challenged the validity of the said certificate and in the absence of any challenge to the said Certificate, the Legal Proceeding Certificate dated 22nd August, 2017, filed by the plaintiff is legal, valid, binding and subsisting. Consequently, the proposed issue does not arise for consideration.

Issue 2: Whether the validity of the plaintiff’s trademark registration is open to challenge by the defendants?

24. This Court is further of the opinion that although the defendants had filed oppositions to two pending applications filed by the plaintiff for registration of the marks ELEMENTS PETER ENGLAND (Label) and PETER ENGLAND (Label), the defendants have neither filed an application under Section 57(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for cancellation/rectification of the plaintiff’s registered trademark PETER ENGLAND, nor an application under Section 124(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking stay of the present proceedings.

25. According to the judgment in Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Another Vs. P.M. Diesels Limited and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 112 the plea of invalidity of the plaintiff’s trademark 'PETER ENGLAND', made by the defendant, is deemed to be abandoned as the defendants have not moved an application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Section 111 of The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958), till date. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'36. Thus, by virtue of the operation of the 1958 Act, the plea of rectification, upon abandonment, must be understood to have ceased to exist or survive between the parties inter se. Any other view would be to permit a party to collaterally raise the issue of rectification at any stage notwithstanding that a final decree may have been passed by the civil court in the meantime. True, the decree of the civil court will be on the basis of the conclusions on the other issues in the suit. But to permit the issue of rectification, once abandoned, to be resurrected at the option of the party who had chosen not to pursue the same at an earlier point of time would be to open the doors to reopening of decrees/orders that have attained finality in law. This will bring in uncertainty if not chaos in the judicial determinations between the parties that stand concluded. Besides, such an interpretation would permit an aggrieved party to get over the operation of a statute providing for deemed abandonment of the right to raise an issue relevant; in fact, fundamental to the lis.'

26. Consequently, the second issue proposed by the defendants also does not arise for consideration.

Issue 3: What is the effect of a copyright registration by the defendant of its brand PETER ENGLAND VIP SHOES?

27. This Court in Societe Des Produits Nestle vs. Continental Coffee Ltd. (2011) 185 DLT 752 has held that mere registration under the Copyright Act, 1957 does not authorize the defendant to use the trademark of the plaintiff, if it is found that the mark being used by the defendants is identical or similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

'19. In my view, mere registration under Copyright Act does not authorize the defendant to use the trademark of the plaintiff if it is found that the mark being used by him is identical or similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff or it is proved that use of the impugned mark by him on identical goods is likely to cause confusion or create an impression of association with the registered trademark of the plaintiff. Registration under Copyright Act, in such a situation would be no defence to the charge of infringement and would not take the case out of the purview of Section 29(1) and (2) of Trademarks Act, 1999.'

28. In view of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the opinion that registration of an artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957 in favour of the defendants, does not confer any right in the defendants to use the plaintiff’s trademark 'PETER ENGLAND' and/or the same does not afford a defense to the defendants in a suit for infringement.

Issue 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief as the plaintiff is only involved in the business of apparel, while the defendants are involved in the business of shoes?

29. In fact, the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'PETER ENGLAND' under class-25, which includes clothing and headgear as well as footwear. Section 28(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, grants the trademark owner '…the exclusive right to use of the trade mark in relation to the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

…', which in the present case includes footwear as well as clothing and headgear. 30. This Court is also of the opinion that a mark which is registered is protected, irrespective of the fact whether the plaintiff uses the registered mark. The Apex Court in M/s Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and others v. Coca Cola Company and others (1995) 5 SCC 545 has held as under: '11.…In respect of a trade mark registered under the provisions of the Act certain statutory rights have been conferred on the registered proprietor which enabled him to sue for the infringement of the trade mark irrespective of whether or not mark is used.…' 31. It is pertinent to mention that recently the owner of a restaurant in Seoul, South Korea, was fined 14.5 million KRW (about $125,000) for adopting the name and signature monogram pattern of Louis Vuitton for his restaurant, to sell chicken. The owner adopted the name 'Louis Vuiton Dak' in an attempt to play a parody on Louis Vuitton, as the last two words together read together as 'tongdak', the Korean word for 'whole chicken'. The intention behind adopting the name 'Louis Vuiton Dak' was to poke fun at the Louis Vuitton customers, thereby bordering on trademark parody. The defence that Louis Vuitton was not in the restaurant business did not 'cut any ice'. When threatened with large fines, the owner changed it to 'chaLouisvui tondak', but was nonetheless fined 14.5 million KRW (about $125,000). (See: https://trademark.eu/louis-vuitton-dont-be-a-chicken/) 32. In view of the above, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants in terms of prayer clause 32 (i) of the plaint along with the actual costs. The costs shall amongst others include the lawyers’ fees as well as the amounts spent on purchasing the court fees. The plaintiff is given liberty to file on record the exact cost incurred by it in adjudication of the present suit, if not already filed. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly. Consequently, the present suit and applications stand disposed of.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

18-06-2020 M/s Saroj Sales Organization & Another Versus Dolly Bharucha & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 Aditya Nath Jha Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Monika Sales Agencies & Another Versus Mahesh Nagari Sah. Patsanstha Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
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
04-05-2020 Priyambada Devi Birla & Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-03-2020 Amar Kumar Saraswat Versus M/s. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 M/s. Paul Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Hari Darshan Sevashram Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 M/s. R. Prakashchand Jewellery, Chennai Versus The Secretary, Tamilnadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 M/s.The Coimbatore Cosmopolitan Club, Coimbatore Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl. Bench), Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-02-2020 M/s. Kge Yes Residency Private Limited, Chennai Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 Dharmapuri Handloom weaver's Cooperative Production Sales Society Limited., Represented by its Administration Dharmapuri Liquidator of the Society Babu Versus P. Sambantham High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 Ravi Rathi & Another Versus M/s Aditya Construction Company (India) Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its Director, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
12-02-2020 M/s. Sharadha Terry Products Ltd., Coimbatore Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Commercial Taxes Buildings, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Executive Director, Sales And Marketing Renault India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Paramjeet Singh Brar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
04-02-2020 Society of Welfare Handicapped Person Versus The Regional Sales Manager, RFCL Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-01-2020 Pramod Poddar Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-01-2020 Chedde Mahesh Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Another Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
23-01-2020 Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Others Versus Sunita Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
17-01-2020 Sangrur Sales Corporation Versus United India Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
08-01-2020 Tvl. Brahma Sakthi Tin Factory, Rep. By its Partner SVS Velkumar, Villupuram Versus The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, rep. By its Secretary, City Civil Court Building, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 M/s. Confluence Petroleum India Ltd., Represented by its Sales Manager N. Murugan Versus The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 Balakrishna Sales Corporation V/S Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Cochin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Bangalore
16-12-2019 Kuber (India) Sales Pvt. Ltd, Represented by Sri Debraj Choudhury Versus Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala & Others High Court of Tripura
10-12-2019 Srilakshmi Vallurupalli Versus M/s. Aditya Construction Company (India) Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its Director, Thota Satyanarayana & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
03-12-2019 M. Lakshmi Versus The Secretary D.D.9 Uthangarai Agriculture Producers Co-operative Sales Societies Ltd., Krishnagiri District & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-11-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Versus Ashok Kumar Kuthiala Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
19-11-2019 Baidyanath Yadav Versus Aditya Narayan Roy & Others Supreme Court of India
19-11-2019 The Manager, Machino Techno Sales Ltd. Versus Prithwis Chanda Deb & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-11-2019 The Management of M/s. Birla Te Versus Chunni Lal High Court of Delhi
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
15-10-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Golla Venkateswaramma Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
26-09-2019 Siya Ram Saran Aditya & Others Versus State of U.P Thru C.B.I., & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-09-2019 B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
28-08-2019 Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Versus M/s. Arrow Devices Pvt. Ld. Represented By Its Managing Director, Shri Aditya Mittal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2019 M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd. Shahnazaf Road Lko.Throu. Director Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Tax Ashok Marg Lko High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-08-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Konchada Ravi Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2019 M/s. Porwal Sales Versus M/s. Flame Control Industries High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-08-2019 M/s. Dulichand Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Sree Howrah Stores, partnership firm, represented by its partner, Ashok Kumar & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-08-2019 Kashish Country Resort Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Bansal Sales Corporation High Court of Delhi
19-07-2019 Sidharth Chauhan Versus Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund Through its investment Manger & Lawful attorney, Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-07-2019 The Sales Manager, M/s.Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd, Adoor Branch & Another Versus Shaiju.P. Mathew & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
17-07-2019 M/s. Aditya Auto Products & Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Head-HR Ramesh Pai Versus M/s. Aditya Auto Products (NTTF), Rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
10-07-2019 Small Industries Development Bank of India & Another Versus M/s. Aditya Diamonds & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-07-2019 K.C. Sundaram Versus The Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Sales, Planning and Development), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2019 G. Malathi Versus The Deputy General Manager, L.P.G. Sales, Indian Oil Corporation, Marketing Division, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-05-2019 Aditya Swarup Pandey Versus Srawasthi Gramin Bank & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
31-05-2019 Beena Rajesh Raika Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-05-2019 Birla Corporation Limited Versus Adventz Investments & Holdings Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2019 Shankar Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - II High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
22-04-2019 The Deputy General Manager (LPG-Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai Versus M.C. Meyyappan @ Manickam High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-04-2019 Ashutosh Bansal Versus Birla Institute of Management & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-04-2019 TK. Duraimohan Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-04-2019 Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
19-03-2019 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Warangal Dist. & Another Versus Gummi Prudvi Raja Reddy & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-03-2019 Aditya Hospital & Another Versus Baby Vignesh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-03-2019 General Manager, M/s. Jaikrishnaa Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore Versus S. Thangamani & Another Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
07-03-2019 Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. Versus Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
07-03-2019 Aditya Industries Versus Shivam Associates & Another Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ahmedabad
07-03-2019 Birla Institute of Technology Versus State of Jharkhand & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2019 M/s. Aditya Construction Company (JV) Versus The State of Maharashtra, Public Works Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-02-2019 M/s. Hateemy Sales Corporation, Rep. By its Prop. Husseni (deceased) & Others Versus R. Sudhakar High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2019 Sumitra Samantray Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2019 MMTC Limited Versus M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
13-02-2019 The Station Master, Berhampore Court Station P.O. & P.S. & Others Versus Aditya Kumar Saha West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-02-2019 Gummi Prudvi Raja Reddy Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, rep. by its Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Warangal Division High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-01-2019 M/s. Rama Krishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
30-01-2019 The Birla Sr. Secondary School Versus P.O., Industrial Tribunal-III & Another High Court of Delhi
14-01-2019 Aditya Wheel India Pvt. Ltd Versus Central Bank of India & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-01-2019 Bhupesh Sevantilal Shah Versus M/s. Bhoomi Tractors Sales & Services & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-01-2019 Birla Institute of Technology Versus State of Jharkhand & Others Supreme Court of India
09-01-2019 Arafat Ahmed Sheriff & Another Versus Aditya Construction Company India Private Limited & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-01-2019 Arafat Ahmed Sheriff & Another Versus Aditya Construction Company India Private Limited & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-01-2019 Sales Versus M/s. Sri Ram City Union Finance Ltd., Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-01-2019 Aditya Birla Finance Ltd Versus Vishal Chopra & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-01-2019 Birla Institute of Technology Versus State of Jharkhand & Others Supreme Court of India
04-01-2019 M/s. Aculife Healthcare Private Ltd., Gujarat Previously Known as Nirma Limited (Healthcare Division), Represented by Its Regional Sales Manager, Ajish Mathew & Another Versus The Kerala Medical Service Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Managing Director & Others High Court of Kerala
20-12-2018 R. Aditya Versus P. Rashmi High Court of Karnataka
10-12-2018 M/s. TDI International India (P) Ltd., Represented by General Manager (Sales), Sir Usman Court, New Delhi Versus The Regional Executive Director, Southern Region, Administrative Building, Airport Authority of India, Chennai International Airport, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-12-2018 Kun Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd., Puducherry, Represented by Collin Elson, Sales Manager & Another Versus The Asst. State Tax Officer, Kerala State GST Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
05-12-2018 Aditya Auto Products & Engineering India Pvt Ltd. Versus Aditya Auto Products (Nttf) Employees Union High Court of Karnataka
27-11-2018 Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority Versus Birla Super Bulk Terminal (Now A Unit of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.) & Others Supreme Court of India
26-11-2018 Rashmi Aditya Gupta Versus Mangal Keshav Securities Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-11-2018 V. Kalyani Versus Aditya Birla Money Limited, (Formerly known as Apollo Sindhoori Capital Investments Limited), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-10-2018 Finolex Industries Limited Versus The Commissioner of Sales Tax & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-10-2018 Kannu Aditya India Ltd V/S State Bank of India High Court of Delhi
24-10-2018 The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax & Others Versus Amol G. Deore & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-10-2018 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Susee Auto Sales & Service Pvt. Ltd., Madurai Versus V. Dukkaiammal & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-09-2018 Dcit, Circle, Parwanoo Versus M/s. Aditya Industries, Sirmour Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh
24-09-2018 Rajeshwar Mahto Versus Alok Kumar Gupta, G.M. M/s Birla Corporation Ltd. Supreme Court of India
19-09-2018 Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Aditya Hospitals, Hyderabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad
18-09-2018 Hada Textile Industries Ltd Versus Sales Tax Officer, Govt of West Bengal & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
04-09-2018 Norbert Shaba Rego Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-09-2018 Online Communications Sales & Services, Malappuram District Versus P.K. Balan Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
30-08-2018 Mdc Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Ito, Ward- 16(3), New Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi
29-08-2018 V. Kavitha Reddy & Others Versus V. Aditya Reddy & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
29-08-2018 Alangomby Devanga Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Ltd., Rep. by its Manager Manoharan Alangombu, Coimbatore Versus C. Govindaraj High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-08-2018 The Management of M/s. Hewelet Packard India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore Versus The Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
02-08-2018 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director C.S. Aditya Praveen Versus Director General of Foreign Trade, Policy Relaxation Committee, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box