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



Ajay Kumar Malhotra (Director M/s. Rathi Steel (Dakshin) Ltd. v/s CCE, Alwar


Company & Directors' Information:- S A L STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L29199GJ2003PLC043148

Company & Directors' Information:- M M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109TZ1996PTC006849

Company & Directors' Information:- G. O. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100PB2007PTC031033

Company & Directors' Information:- J M G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105BR1992PTC004985

Company & Directors' Information:- RATHI PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106DL2005PTC141836

Company & Directors' Information:- AJAY (INDIA) LTD [Active] CIN = U18102RJ1996PLC011678

Company & Directors' Information:- H L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27107AS1992PTC003726

Company & Directors' Information:- K V M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29141DL1988PTC031248

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104JH1973PTC000998

Company & Directors' Information:- R. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2009PTC193047

Company & Directors' Information:- RATHI INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24111RJ1972PLC001847

Company & Directors' Information:- M M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MH2001PTC131270

Company & Directors' Information:- B L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1981PTC034021

Company & Directors' Information:- R K G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109DL2004PTC128852

Company & Directors' Information:- V B STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2010PTC211691

Company & Directors' Information:- I B STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28910MH2010PTC211344

Company & Directors' Information:- J S C STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106UP2013PTC061568

Company & Directors' Information:- S. M. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2013PTC239811

Company & Directors' Information:- R K P STEEL LTD [Active] CIN = L27109WB1980PLC033206

Company & Directors' Information:- C P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2008PTC127447

Company & Directors' Information:- A. K. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112WB2010PTC144880

Company & Directors' Information:- C D STEEL PVT LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U27109WB1981PTC034340

Company & Directors' Information:- T M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U02710TZ1996PTC007498

Company & Directors' Information:- P M R STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102DL2003PTC122675

Company & Directors' Information:- C T STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB2005PTC106634

Company & Directors' Information:- P G STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24111AS1998PTC005409

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL1987PTC027835

Company & Directors' Information:- J S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52190CT1978PTC001432

Company & Directors' Information:- U M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27209TN1986PTC013670

Company & Directors' Information:- L N STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310WB2007PTC118206

Company & Directors' Information:- H L MALHOTRA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC015821

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. W. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910UP2011PTC043976

Company & Directors' Information:- R. N. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2007PTC116588

Company & Directors' Information:- P M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27105MP1982PTC001915

Company & Directors' Information:- M R STEEL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100TG2013PTC088808

Company & Directors' Information:- C K STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29150WB1975PTC030259

Company & Directors' Information:- AJAY AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01122DL1997PTC089125

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL & COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1991PTC053960

Company & Directors' Information:- N S STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27106PB1980PTC004266

Company & Directors' Information:- MALHOTRA STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27100WB1960PTC024889

Company & Directors' Information:- DAKSHIN STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104TN1996PTC036946

Company & Directors' Information:- R C STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28112AS1980PTC001811

Company & Directors' Information:- P D STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC038426

Company & Directors' Information:- A K STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1961PTC003566

Company & Directors' Information:- H S P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27100MH2013PTC242983

Company & Directors' Information:- D H STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109RJ2012PTC039742

Company & Directors' Information:- R A STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2014PTC253625

Company & Directors' Information:- N. V. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310DL2009PTC186541

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28939DL2012PTC244467

Company & Directors' Information:- S. MALHOTRA & CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1998PTC095990

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1958PTC001309

Company & Directors' Information:- AJAY STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED. [Dissolved] CIN = U27106KL1901PTC002669

    Excise Appeals Nos. 53179-53180 of 2016-EX in-Original No. ALW-EXCUS-O-I-O-COM-44/16-17 & Final Orders Nos. 50019-50020 of 2019

    Decided On, 08 January 2019

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. BIJAY KUMAR
    By, TECHNICAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Bipin Garg, Advocate. For the Respondent: R.K. Mishra, DR.



Judgment Text

Anil Choudhary, Judicial Member.

The present two appeals have been filed by M/s Shri Rathi Steel (Dakshin) Ltd. and Shri Ajay Kumar Melhotra, Director against the Order-in-Original No. ALW-Excus-O-I-O.-COM-44/16-17 dated 22.09.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Alwar. As both the appeals are arising out of same Order, they are being taken together for decision.

2.1 The brief fact of the case are that M/s Shri Rathi Steel (Dakshin) Ltd. (Appellant No.1) are engaged in the manufacture of TMT bars. On the basis of some intelligence to the effect that the steel manufacturing units, including the Appellant No.1, were evading Central Excise duty by suppressing production and removing TMT bars without Invoices and payment of duty with collusion of transporters, the Central Excise Officers searched the business premises of M/s. Pahalwan Goods Carrier, Bhiwadi and M/s Shree Transport, Bhiwadi on 30.11.2012 and 05.12.2012 respectively. The officers resumed certain documents from the premises of M/s Pahalwan Goods Carrier. Nothing was resumed from the premises of M/s Shree Transport.

2.2 A show cause notice dated 01.05.2015 has been issued for demanding Central Excuse duty amounting to Rs.4,53,29,015/- and imposing penalty on the Appellants, alleging that on comparison of documents recovered from the transporter with the sales shown by the Appellant in their statutory records, it was found that the Appellants had issued invoices and paid duty only on some of the consignments and in many cases, the clearance of goods were not found entered in their statutory records. Shri Mahipal Yadav, Proprietor of M/s Pahalwan Goods Carrier has stated in his statement dated 29.08.2013 that his firm was mainly engaged in the transportation of the goods manufactured by the units of the Rathi Group.

2.3 The learned Commissioner, under the impugned Order dated 22.09.2016, has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalties on both the Appellants holding that right to cross-examination is not an absolute right and denial of crossexamination of Shri Mahipal Yadav cannot lead to violation of principles of natural justice as the request for his cross-examination is a ploy to further delay the adjudication proceedings. The learned Commissioner has recorded the finding that the Register resumed from the premises of the transporter has reliability as it contained the details of actual clearances as there is no reason for anyone to scribble entries in their register hypothetically. The Register is trustworthy as it had records of clearances, some of which were also found recorded in the records of the Appellant.

3.1 Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate has contended that though the intelligence said to be gathered by the officers indicated evasion of Central Excise duty by the Appellant, the officers have not searched/visited the factory premises of the Appellant on 30.11.2012. He, further, submitted that even after coming to know about alleged evasion of duty by the Appellant from the records resumed from the premises of the transporter, the officers had taken no action to search the premises of the Appellants. In his statement dated 01.03.2013, Appellant No.2 Shri A.K. Malhotra, Director has categorically stated that the Appellant Company had not removed any goods clandestinely and the records resumed from the transporter are not Appellant Company’s records nor prepared by any employee of the Appellants. In this regard, the learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment in CCE Vs Vishwa Traders Pvt. Ltd., 2013 (287) ELT 243 (Guj) wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that as the stock of raw materials and finished goods were tallying on the date of visit of officers and nothing was found which could show purchase of unaccounted raw material, it cannot be alleged that the Assessee had manufactured or removed the goods clandestinely. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as reported in 2014 (303) ELT A24 (S.C.).

3.2 The learned Advocate emphasized that the entire case has been made against the Appellants on the basis of documents recovered from the premises of a third party. It is settled law that the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods cannot be levelled on the basis of documents resumed from a third party unless the same is corroborated by independent and cogent evidence. In this regard he relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) Emmtex Synthetics Ltd. Vs CCE,

2003 (151) ELT 170 (Tri-Del)

(ii) Kedarnath Silk Mills Vs CCE,

2006 (195) ELT 58 (Tri).

(iii) Charminar Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE,

2005 (192) ELT 1057 (Tri).

(iv) Rutvi Steel & Alloys Vs CCE,

2009 (243) ELT 154.

(v) Surya Alloy Industries Ltd. Vs U.O.I.,

2014 (305) ELT 340 (CAL).

3.3 The learned Advocate also referred to the judgment in the case of CBI Vs V.C. Shukla, 1988 (3) SCC 410, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that entries made in the books shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. Entries, even if relevant, are only corroborative evidence and require independent evidence as to trustworthiness of those entries necessary to fasten liability.

4.1 The learned Advocate submitted that in the present matter, there is no independent corroboration of the records of the third party by way of recording statements of any truck drivers, who had allegedly transported the goods, statements of any so-called buyers whose names appeared in GRs [bilty] resumed from transporter premises and statements of any worker/employee of the Appellants. He relied upon the decision in the case of Rama Shyama Papers Ltd. Vs CCE, 2004 (168) ELT 494 (Tri-Del).

5. Appeal No.C/55616/2014-DB

4.2 The learned Advocate contended that the mere fact that the documents recovered from transporter’s office contain the entries in respect of which Appellants had issued Invoices and which were accounted for in their records does not, rather cannot, lead to the conclusion that all entries in the said records pertained to the Appellants. The onus of proof is on the Department by bringing independent and cogent corroborative evidence linking the said entries with the removal of goods from the Appellants factory. No such link has been adduced by the Department at all. In the case of Shri Laxmi Industries Vs CC & CE Hyderabad-IV, 2016 (336) ELT 681 (Tri-Hyd), the case was made against the Appellants on the basis of documents seized from the residence of input supplier and his statement. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal holding that whole case is based upon third party private records and statement of such third party. Tribunal held that 'In the absence of independent evidence, the charges levelled against the Appellant is not sustainable.'

4.3 The learned Advocate also contended that though the learned Commissioner has passed the impugned Order holding that the resumed register from transporter’s premises is tangible evidence to substantiate clandestine manufacture and clearance and relying upon the statement of Mahipal Yadav, proprietor of transport firm, neither the copy of the said register was provided to the Appellants nor the cross-examination of the Proprietor was allowed. Thus, the impugned Order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He relied upon the following judgments:-

A. For Not Providing Documents.

(i) Kothari Filaments Vs C.C. (Port),

2009 (233) ELT 289 (SC).

6. Appeal No.C/55616/2014-DB

(ii) Harshvardan Rajnikant Triveni Vs U.O.I.,

2014 (308) ELT 464 (Guj).

(iii) Santogen Silk Mills Ltd. Vs CCE,

2013 (295) ELT 218 (Tri).

B. For Not Allowing Cross Examination.

(i) Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE, 2015 (324) ELT 641.

(ii) CCE Vs Parmarth Iron (P) Ltd., 2010 (260) ELT 514 (ALL).

(iii) Basudev Garg Vs C.C., 2013 (294) ELT 353 (Del)

5. Finally the learned Counsel submitted that there is no evidence at all about procurement of raw material and clearance of goods. It has been the consistent view of the Courts and Tribunal that there should be positive evidence regarding purchase of raw materials, use of electricity, sale of final products to prove clandestine manufacture and removal. The Allahabad High Court has held in Continental Cement Company Vs U.O.I., 2014 (309) ELT 411 (ALL) that unless there is clinching evidence of the nature of purchase of raw material, use of electricity, sale of final products, the mode and flow back of funds, demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumption. The Allahabad High court has held that 'we are of the opinion that when there is no extra consumption of electricity, purchase of raw materials and transportation payment, then manufacturing of extra goods is not possible.'

6. The learned DR, Shri R.K. Mishra has supported the impugned Order-inOriginal. The learned DR has emphasized that the register resumed from the premises of the transporter’s contained the details of actual clearances and thus, the entries not recorded by the Appellants in their records were the goods removed without invoices and without payment of duty. There is no reason for a transporter to make those entries in his records.

7. Heard both sides, considered the submissions in detail and perused the records. The demand of Central Excise duty has been confirmed and the penalties have been imposed on both the Appellants on the basis of records resumed from the premises of transporter and the statement of the proprietor of the transport firm. The main issue involved in the present matter is whether the charge of clandestine removal can be made on the basis of documents resumed from the premises of a third party without independent corroboration.

8. We observe that neither the factory premises of the Appellants has been searched nor any discrepancy in the stocks of finished goods & raw materials has been found by the Central Excise Officers. No investigation has been conducted by the officers at the Appellant’s end, as to whether they have the capacity to produce the alleged quantity of TMT bars, electricity consumption, purchase of raw materials, its transportation and payment to the suppliers. There is no investigation about the buyers of goods involving duty of more than Rs.4.53 Crores. The entire case has been made upon the recovery of some documents from the third party premises. It is well settled law that allegations and findings of clandestine removal are required to be made upon cogent and positive evidence which corroborate unaccounted production and clearance of finished goods. In the present matter, no such evidence is available on record at all, except the third party records which cannot be relied upon as admissible piece of evidence in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in CBI Vs V.C. Shukla, 1998 AIR SC 1406. The Apex Court observed as under:

'A conspectus of the above decisions makes it evident that even correct and authentic entries in books of account cannot without independent evidence of their trustworthiness, fix a liability upon a person. Keeping in view the above principles, even if we proceed on the assumption that the entries made in MR 71/91 are correct and the entries in the [other] books and loose sheets (which we have already found to be not admissible in evidence under Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers’ correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss, delve into or decide upon the contention raised by Mr. Altaf Ahmed in this regard. Suffice it to say that the statements of the four witnesses, who have admitted receipts of the payments as shown against them in MR 71/91, can at best be proof of reliability of the entries so far they are concerned and not others. In other words, the statements of the above witnesses cannot be independent evidence under Section 34 as against the above two respondents. So far as Shri Advani is concerned Section 34 would not come in aid of the prosecution for another reason also. According to the prosecution case itself his name finds place only in one of the loose sheets (Sheet No. 8) and not in MR 71/91. Resultantly, in view of our earlier discussion, Section 34 cannot at all be pressed into service against him.'

9.1 Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Rama Shyama Papers Ltd. Vs CCE, Lucknow, 2004 (168) ELT 494 (Tri-Del) by holding as under in Para 10:

'10 The confirmation of duty in respect of 149 consignments is also based on the records seized from the premises of M/s. Chitra Traders and not on the basis of any record seized from the premises of the Appellant-company. The Revenue has not been able to adduce any corroborative evidence to show the movement of goods from the premises of the Appellant-company to the premises of M/s. Chitra Traders or the Customers whom the goods were sent directly to as per the direction of Chitra Traders. No inquiry has also been made into these Customers who ultimately received the goods. There is no substance in the reasoning given by the Commissioner in the impugned order to the effect that 'as the party did not challenge the fact of their business association with M/s. Chitra Traders, Delhi, the enquiry further down the line was not considered necessary.' The onus of proof that the goods were removed by the Appellants without payment of duty and without entering the same in their records is upon the Revenue which cannot be discharged merely on the strength of the entries made in the records of a third party without linking the removal of goods from the premises of the Appellant-company. The mere fact that the Appellant-company had business relation with Chitra Traders, does not mean that they will be liable to each and every entry made by Chitra Traders in their books of account.'

9.2 The learned Counsel for the Appellants has rightly submitted that this Tr

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ibunal has consistently held that the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods cannot be proved merely on the basis of third party records without independent corroboration. Some of the decisions are as follows:- (1) CCE Vs Renny Steel Castings (P) Ltd., 2011 (274) ELT 94 (Tri). (2) Shirley Dyers Vs CCE, Jallandhar, 2013 (293) ELT 234 (Tri-Del). 10. We also agree with the learned Counsel that the impugned Order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the crossexamination of Shri Mahipal Yadav, Proprietor of transport firm was not allowed though the statement recorded from him has been relied upon by the learned Adjudicating Authority. The Supreme Court has observed in Andman Timber Industries Vs C.C.E., Kolkata-II, 2015 (324) ELT 641 (S.C.) that 'According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority, though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned Order is a serious flaw which makes the Order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected.' 11. We find that except the recovery of some document from the premises of third party and unsubstantiated statement of proprietor of transport firm, there is factually no other evidence to indicate any clandestine manufacture and removal of the finished goods by the Appellant. Accordingly we set aside the impugned Order and allow both the appeals.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-09-2020 Ajay Kumar Versus State (NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
18-09-2020 Priyamvada Devi Birla (Dec.) & Others Versus Ajay Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-09-2020 Vijay Singh Yadav Versus Ajay Shanker Rai High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-09-2020 Ajay Nandkishor Pasi Versus The Commissioner of Police, Thane & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-09-2020 Ajay Kashyap Versus Shashi Prabha Kashyap High Court of Chhattisgarh
02-09-2020 Ajay Kashyap Versus Shashi Prabha Kashyap High Court of Chhattisgarh
20-07-2020 M/s. Maa Sarala Multipurpose Cooperative Limited Versus Steel Authority of India & Another High Court of Orissa
15-07-2020 Col (TS) Ajay Sangwan Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
14-07-2020 Ranjit Malhotra Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-07-2020 Suraj Malhotra Versus The State of Delhi High Court of Delhi
01-07-2020 Chetan Dayal Versus Aruna Malhotra & Others High Court of Delhi
29-06-2020 Ramesh Malhotra & Another Versus Emaar Mgf Land Limited, Through its Managing Director, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-06-2020 Ajay & Another Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
18-06-2020 Shashi Malhotra Versus Ashok Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Ajay Kumar Dubey Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-06-2020 Ajay Kumar Lallu Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
09-06-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Versus Steel Authority of India, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
09-06-2020 Rakesh Malhotra Versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
05-06-2020 Padam Kumar Versus Dr. Ajay Kumar, IAS & Others High Court of Delhi
04-06-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Versus State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
03-06-2020 Anshu Malhotra Versus Mukesh Malhotra High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Another Versus Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-05-2020 M/s. Gemini Circus, Dadar T.T., Mumbai, Rep. by its Partner Ajay Shankar Versus M/s. Great Gemini Circus, KDA Colony, Kanpur High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-05-2020 Ajay @ Vijay @ Babu Jaiswal, Chhattisgarh Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
30-04-2020 Ajay Gupta Versus Sonia Gupta High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus State Tradings Corporation Of India Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
27-04-2020 Ajay Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
24-03-2020 Ajay Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-03-2020 Ajay & Others Versus The Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-03-2020 Dr. Ajay Kumar Versus Indu Bala Mishra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 Ajay Sharma & Others Versus Kulwant Singh High Court of Delhi
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-03-2020 Ajay Issar Versus Komal Issar (Nee Kohli) High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
28-02-2020 M/.GBR Metals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Venkatesh Rathi Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Poeddunaickenpet Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Ajay Kumar Versus State Of Uttarakhand & Another High Court of Uttarakhand
24-02-2020 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus GPT Steel Industries Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
19-02-2020 Ajay Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-02-2020 Ajay Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
13-02-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, O/o. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Salem Versus M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., M/s. JSW Power Ltd., Pottaneri, Mecheri High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Salem Steel Plant, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Finance & Accounts, K. Sivaguru, Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 Ajay Kumar Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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
11-02-2020 Ajay Kumar Versus Om Prakash & Another High Court of Delhi
10-02-2020 Ajay Pandey Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
07-02-2020 Uday Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-02-2020 Rakesh Malhotra Versus Krishna Malhotra Supreme Court of India
05-02-2020 M/s. Texcel International Pvt. Ltd., Sengundram Industrial Area (Near Ford India Ltd.,), Chengalpattu Versus M/s. Chennai Steel Tubes, Rep.by one of its Partner, G. Bhavanishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Ajay Verma Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2 Versus M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. (Successor on amalgamation of JSW Ispat Steel Ltd.) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-01-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Ajay Ramesh Dinode Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary and Legal Remembrance, Law & Judicial Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-01-2020 Ajay Kaushik Versus R. Sasikumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 Brewsky Hospitality Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Ajay Ramalinge Gowda & Another Versus Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Represented by its Commissioner & Another High Court of Karnataka
24-01-2020 Ajay Mody & Others Versus Rajul Patel High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-01-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-01-2020 Ajay Anand & Others Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
15-01-2020 Ravindra Sakharam Nagare Versus Ajay Rao Saheb & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-01-2020 Ananta Alias Ajay Ghosh Versus Suvajit Ghosh & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-01-2020 M/s. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Versus Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd. High Court of Jharkhand
09-01-2020 Ajay Kumar Bishnoi, Former Managing Director, M/s. Tecpro Systems Ltd. Versus M/s. Tap Engineering, Rep. by Jawahar High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Ashish Ajay More Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
07-01-2020 Shri Ajay Kumar Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-01-2020 Ajay Dika Versus Shalu & Another High Court of Delhi
06-01-2020 M/s. Rukminirama Steel Rollings Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus The State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary, Secretariat & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
03-01-2020 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Jyoti Ajay Avatade & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-12-2019 Keshava Kolar @ K. & Others Versus Ajay Gopaldas Samat & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-12-2019 Selva's Steel Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 G.R. Malhotra & Another Versus Canara Bank & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi
10-12-2019 Shalimar Iron and Steel Private Limited, Ramgarh Cantt. through its Director Rafat Praveen Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
09-12-2019 Ajay Bandu Darekar & Others Versus Adhikrao Baburao Deshmane & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-12-2019 Ritika Goel Versus Ajay Goel High Court of Punjab and Haryana
05-12-2019 M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd & Another Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 Ajay Kumar Karya Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
04-12-2019 Ajay Arun Kumar Chougule Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-12-2019 M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, V.S. Prasad Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Project Director, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-12-2019 Electrosteel Steel Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. STP Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-11-2019 Ajay Tiwari Versus University of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
18-11-2019 Rajan Malhotra & Another Versus Union Bank of India & Others High Court of Delhi
06-11-2019 B. Basappa & Another Versus J.S.W. Steel Ltd., Bellary High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
06-11-2019 Anand Rathi Share & Stock Brokers Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
04-11-2019 JSW Steel Limited Versus Government of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
01-11-2019 Ashok Malhotra Versus State (Govt of NCT Delhi) & Another High Court of Delhi
30-10-2019 Ms. Sandhya Malhotra Versus M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 Versus NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
24-10-2019 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus Arun Kumar Jagatramka National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
22-10-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited Central Marketing Organization Through Assistant General Manager (Marketing) Regional Office, Maharashtra Versus Lalit Agrawal & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-10-2019 Vanit Gupta & Another Versus Delta Iron & Steel Company P. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-10-2019 JSW Steel Ltd. Versus Mahender Kumar Khandelwal & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
10-10-2019 Rathi Ispat Ltd. Versus Inox Air Product Ltd. High Court of Delhi
10-10-2019 Ajay Kumar & Others Versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
09-10-2019 Sudesh Kumar Bansal Versus Ajay Saini & Others High Court of Delhi
03-10-2019 Ajay Kumar Nag Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
27-09-2019 Apeksha & Another Versus Ajay High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
27-09-2019 Ajay Kr. Paul, Indusind Bank, Baruipur & Another Versus Subrata Chatterjee West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-09-2019 M/s. Indus Cityscapes Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Director Ajay Lunawath, Chennai Versus M/s. Karismaa Foundations Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director Rakesh P Sheth High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-09-2019 Ajit @ Ajay Nanubhai Baria Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Kerala
20-09-2019 Ajay Ramagiya Gupta Versus State of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-09-2019 Asha Patil @ Asha Sagar Rathi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-09-2019 Deshaboina Veerababu Versus Sri Ajay Mishra, IAS High Court of for the State of Telangana