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



Anand v/s Reward Real Estate Company Limited & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- REWARD REAL ESTATE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2004PLC144099

Company & Directors' Information:- ANAND PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00000DL2001PTC109063

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND A REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101MP2005PTC017801

Company & Directors' Information:- ANAND PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1975PTC018274

Company & Directors' Information:- J A REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102MH2006PTC165621

Company & Directors' Information:- A L W ESTATE PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1993PTC057397

Company & Directors' Information:- V A C L INDIA REAL ESTATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U41000UP2010PLC039840

Company & Directors' Information:- S L H ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC140123

Company & Directors' Information:- ANAND AND ANAND PVT. LTD. [Amalgamated] CIN = U99999DL1983PTC016655

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND H REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC140352

Company & Directors' Information:- S K G ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC140647

Company & Directors' Information:- I AND S REAL ESTATE INDIA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102WB2012PLC187177

Company & Directors' Information:- M M REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP1993PTC015665

Company & Directors' Information:- K D REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U70102WB2013PTC189883

Company & Directors' Information:- N C G REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2006PTC152212

Company & Directors' Information:- ANAND AND CO. P. LTD. [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC031346

Company & Directors' Information:- T. R. REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201MP2006PTC018690

Company & Directors' Information:- M S ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202MH1998PTC117103

Company & Directors' Information:- ANAND ESTATE PVT LTD [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U70200MH1989PTC052256

Company & Directors' Information:- M A REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB1999PTC090346

Company & Directors' Information:- A.N.D. REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB2005PTC105881

Company & Directors' Information:- V M ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1996PTC079469

Company & Directors' Information:- ANAND LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101WB2010PLC148865

Company & Directors' Information:- M. S. REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102WB2010PTC150317

Company & Directors' Information:- ANAND (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74591DL1998PTC095751

Company & Directors' Information:- B M P ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45200DL2006PTC156493

Company & Directors' Information:- K N F ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202PN2006PTC129684

Company & Directors' Information:- S P K REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101TZ2008PTC014522

Company & Directors' Information:- L D REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U45201DL2003PTC122147

Company & Directors' Information:- D. D. REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200DL2008PTC174755

Company & Directors' Information:- K R REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201MH2003PTC141282

Company & Directors' Information:- V REAL ESTATE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102MH2007PTC175152

Company & Directors' Information:- G K S ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102TN2007PTC063818

Company & Directors' Information:- J R ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1994PTC058595

Company & Directors' Information:- G P ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201GJ1987PTC009746

Company & Directors' Information:- P. C. ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203MH2003PTC141842

Company & Directors' Information:- B-ANAND AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203DL1988PTC032328

Company & Directors' Information:- D I REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101RJ2013PTC041288

Company & Directors' Information:- REAL-T PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109MH2007PTC172681

Company & Directors' Information:- S B ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2003PTC142450

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND A REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100MH1999PTC118097

Company & Directors' Information:- S S P REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MH2002PTC137833

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2012PTC050397

Company & Directors' Information:- A S REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102DL2007PTC160519

Company & Directors' Information:- J L G REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U70109DL2006PTC153714

Company & Directors' Information:- D V REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2013PTC253269

Company & Directors' Information:- C L C ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109HR2009PTC039162

Company & Directors' Information:- J J REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101GJ2012PTC069946

    Complaint Case No. CC/88 of 2017

    Decided On, 03 January 2019

    At, Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. B.A. SHAIKH
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JAYSHREE YENGAL
    By, MEMBER

    For the Complainant: Vora, Advocate. For the Opposite Partys: Jaiswal, Advocates.



Judgment Text

B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member.

1. This is a complaint filed under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under.

a. The complainant is the son of Mr. Jitendra Girdharbhai Vithalani. The complainant appointed his father Mr. Jitendra G. Vithalani as his power of attorney. The opposite party (for short OP) No. 1 is a “Real Estate Company Ltd.” and it is represented by its Principal Officer. The OP No. 1 carries on its business by its office situated at Mumbai. The OP No. 2 is also the same company. It carries out business activities at Nagpur. The OP No. 3 is indulged in the activities of developing of the properties. The complainant was desirous of purchasing suitable residential accommodation at Nagpur. Therefore as per his request his power of attorney holder namely Mr. Jitendra Girdharbhai Vithalani contacted OP No. 2 at Nagpur. The OP No. 2 represented him that the OP No. 3 has purchased a land described in para No. 3 of the complaint. Moreover, the OP No. 3 also said that the said land is being under development and necessary steps are taken for the same. It was also said by OP No. 3 that the multi user complex under the name and style of “Empress City” is proposed to be constructed on the said land after development and that the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) has also granted necessary permission . The OP No. 3 also entered into an agreement to carry out the construction.

b. The complainant then visited the office of OP No. 2 and after due deliberation and negotiation with OP No. 2, the complainant agreed to purchase one of the residential apartment No. TC-1203 under the proposed construction, for total consideration of Rs. 10,40,1843/- comprising of Rs. 98,25,000/- towards price of the said apartment, Rs. 3,03,593/- towards service tax, Rs. 98,295/- towards value added tax (VAT) and Rs. 1,75,000/- towards advance maintenance charges. The said purchase price was of inclusive of Stamp Duty, Registration Charges, Legal Expenses & Electricity and Water Connection charges. The complainant was assured of completion of the project and being put in actual physical possession of the apartment on or before 31/12/2014.

c. The complainant accordingly paid in installments to OP Nos. 1 and 2, total amount of Rs. 68,33,751/-. The balance amount of Rs. 29,91,949/- was to be paid as per schedule governed by the agreement and an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was to be paid against maintenance deposit at the time of delivery of possession. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 issued allotment letter to the complainant on 6/1/2014. Moreover, at the time of execution of agreement to sell, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 also collected Rs. 4,01,843/- vide cheque dated 20/03/2014 towards Service tax and Sales tax. Thus, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 received total amount of Rs. 72,35,584/- from the complainant.

d. There was dismal progress in construction work proposed to house the apartment of the complainant. The complainant being skeptical of being put in possession of the apartment on or before 31/12/2014, he contacted OP Nos. 1 and 2 on several occasions. He also addressed mails to them and communicated his concern to them. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 finally on 25/08/2014 addressed a communication to the complainant and assured him that he will be put in possession of the apartment by 31/12/2014.

e. However, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 failed either to complete construction or put the complainant in possession of the apartment till 31/12/2014. Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice on 1/1/2015 to OP No. 1 and its copy was given to OP No. 2. The complainant had called upon them to hand over possession of the apartment completed in all respect within three days from the receipt of the notice by accepting balance consideration. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 received the said notice and gave reply on 9/1/2015 and thereby they failingly tried to justify the delay.

f. There was no progress in construction work until June 2015. There were several rounds of negotiations in between complainant and OP No. 2 for the period from January 2015 till June 2015. Finally, it was agreed to enlarge the time of the delivery of possession till 31/12/2016 and scale down the consideration to Rs. 72,35,584/- exclusive of the payment of Rs. 1,75,000/- covering the advance maintenance deposit Rs. 175000/- were agreed to be paid at the time of delivery of possession of the apartment. It was also agreed by OP Nos. 1 and 2 that in case of their in ability to hand over the possession till 31/12/2016, they would refund the purchase price along with interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum within 15 days of the notice, as per provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats, 1963, along with upfront refund of 50 percent of Stamp Duty and Registration charges or alternatively if mutually agreed, the complainant would qualify for additional interest at the rate of 1 percent per annum on the paid amount till actual possession of the apartment is given. It was also agreed that in case the OP Nos. 1 and 2 did not receive refund of the Stamp Duty, from the Collector of Stamps, in such an event, the balance 50 percent on the said account would be paid by OP Nos. 1 and 2 to the complainant. The said terms were reduced into writing between the parties on 1/7/2015. It was duly registered . The OP Nos. 1 and 2 failed to adhere to aforesaid the modified terms and failed to deliver the possession on 31/12/2016. Therefore the complainant issued notice on 20/01/2017 to the OP Nos. 1 and 2 and called upon them to pay total Rs. 80,77,594/- that is Rs. 72,35,594/- paid towards purchase price of the apartment, Rs. 7,62,000/- towards the Stamp Duty, Rs. 30,000/- towards Registration Charges and Rs. 50,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses incurred by the complainant, with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum within a period of 15 days, from the receipt of the notice. The OP Nos. 1,2 and 3 received the said notices but failed to comply with the request made in the said notices. Thus, they adopted unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant filed the complaint seeking following reliefs.

I. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally shall pay to the complainant total Rs. 80,97,594/- with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date of the receipt of the payment until its realization.

II. The OP Nos. 1,2 and 3 to pay jointly and severally to the complainant Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation for physical and mental harassment.

III. Cost of Rs. 50,000/- may be saddled on OP Nos. 1,2 and 3.

3. The complainant along with filed copies of documents namely payment receipts, allotment letter, letter of negotiation, notices & agreement to sell executed by OP Nos. 1,2 and 3.

4. The OP Nos. 1,2 and 3 filed their common reply to the complaint and thereby resisted it. The OP Nos. 1,2 and 3 in their said reply made submission in brief as under.

a. The complaint has suppressed material facts from this Commission and therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed on the said count. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The complaint does not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The complainant has not filed power of attorney in support of the complaint. Hence on this count also the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

b. The averments made as regards the matter of record is not disputed by the OP. It is denied that there was no progress in the construction work. The delay in delivery of possession has been made good by giving the discount of almost Rs. 25,89,406/- to the complainant by reducing the total sale consideration of Rs. 72,35,584/- exclusive of maintenance of Rs. 1,75,000/-. The contents of the agreement dated 1/7/2015 are not disputed. The complainant is not entitled to get any kind of compensation from the OP because the complainant already got the discount of delay in delivery of possession. Therefore the complaint needs to be dismissed. The Ops are ready to give possession of the flat as it is ready for fit-outs and the complainant has to come and suggest the other things to be done as per his choice. The discount of Rs. 25,89,406/- have been duly accepted by the complainant by executing subsequent registered agreement. However, the remainders were issued to the complainant that the apartment is ready for fit-outs and needs complainant suggestions for interior part of the apartment to be completed.

c. This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Moreover, this Commission has no territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. The complaint is not filed within limitation. Hence the OP Nos. 1,2 and 3 requested that complaint may be dismissed.

5. The complainant filed rejoinder to the complaint after filing of the reply by the OP to the complaint. The complainant also filed photograph of the entire building along with bill issued by the photographer about the same. The learned advocate of the complainant also filed written notes of arguments . The learned advocate of the complainant filed copies of the emails and the information provided by MAHA RERA as regards the subject matter. The learned advocate of the OPs also filed written notes of arguments. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Vora appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Jaiswal appearing for OP Nos. 1,2 and 3. We have also perused entire record and proceeding of the complaint.

6. The learned advocate of the complainant during his arguments has drawn our attention to the aforesaid documents filed in support of the complaint and submitted that it is proved that despite of making such huge payment by the complainant to the OP, the construction of the building is still incomplete. He also submitted that there is no question of giving any suggestion to the OP for any such fit-outs as there was no such agreement for providing suggestions for the same to the OP. He also submitted that when the construction is still incomplete and when there is no question of giving suggestions by the complainant to the OP for fit-outs , there is no substance in the defence raised by the OP in the reply. Hence he requested that the reliefs sought for in the complaint may be granted.

7. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the OP restrained the aforesaid case of the OP as set out in their reply and submitted that the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation from the OP as he already got discount for delay in possession and the OP is ready to give possession of the flat which is ready for fit-outs, but the complainant has not come forward to give suggestion for the fit-outs. Hence he requested that complaint may be dismissed.

8. So far as the contentions raised by the OP as regards non maintainability of the complaint is concerned, we find that there is a relationship of consumer and service provider in between complainant on one side and OP Nos. 1,2 and 3 on another side, in view of the transaction made in between them. Moreover, we also find that this Commission has got territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. We also hold that the complaint is not barred by limitation since the construction of the building apartment is still incomplete & OP failed to complete it as per agreement.

9. We also find that admittedly an agreement was entered into between the complainant and OP in respect of the flat No. TC-1203, possession of which was to be given as per agreement to the complainant by 31/12/2014. However, though the complainant paid huge amount of Rs. 72,35,584/- out of total consideration of Rs. 10,40,1843/- to OP, the construction was not completed on or before 31/12/2014. Moreover, subsequent to the said date, both the parties entered into another agreement under the name and title as “Modification Cum Amendment to Agreement to Sell” and admittedly as per that agreement the price of the flat was reduced to Rs. 72,35,584/- which amount has been already paid by the complainant to the OP. As per said second agreement, the possession of flat was to be given after due completion of the construction till 31/12/2016.

10. It is a defence of the OP that the construction has been completed but suggestions are not given by the complainant for fit-outs in the flat. There is no agreement to show that it was necessary for the complainant to give suggestion for fit-outs before taking delivery of possession of the flat. We find that in the absence of any evidence about requirement of providing fit-outs by the complainant, we find no substance in the said defence raised by the OP.

11. The complainant had tried his level best for taking possession of the flat but the OP did not complete the construction as per agreement within time. The photograph of the building produced on record by the complainant also shows that most of the construction is incomplete. The OP has not produced any document to rebut evidence adduced by complainant. The OP failed to prove that the construction has been fully completed and that the flat is ready for giving its possession to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the OPs have rendered deficient service to the complainant by not completing the construction even after the time was extended till 31/12/2016 by second agreement as above. Moreover, the OP has also adopted unfair trade practice by accepting huge amount of Rs. 72,35,584/- by misleading the complainant that the construction will be completed as

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

per agreement. 12. We thus find that the complainant has rightly claimed refund of Rs. 72,35,584/- under the above facts and circumstances. Moreover, the complainant has also rightly claimed Rs. 7,62,000/- towards stamp duty., Rs. 30,000/- towards registration charges and Rs. 50,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses incurred by him. Thus, the total amount claimed by the complainant is Rs. 80,77,594/-. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to refund that amount to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the respective date of payment till realization. Moreover, the OP Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are also liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation cost. 13. In the result, of the aforesaid discussion, we do not agree with the submission of the leaned advocate of the OP and proceed to pass the following order. ORDER I. The complaint is partly allowed as under. II. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally Rs. 80,97,594/- with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date of respective payment made by the complainant to them, till realization of the said amount by the complainant. III. The OP Nos. 1,2 and 3 jointly and severally shall pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- IV. Copy of the order be furnished to both parties, free of cost.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

17-09-2020 Dinesh Gupta & Others Versus Anand Gupta & Others High Court of Delhi
17-09-2020 M/s. MSD Real Estate LLP Versus The Collector of Stamps & Another Supreme Court of India
11-09-2020 Nagpur Integrated Township Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-09-2020 SREI Equipment Finance Limited Versus Rajeev Anand & Others Supreme Court of India
02-09-2020 G. Anand Kumar Bhandari & Another Versus N. Narasimha Murthy & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-08-2020 Harsh Anand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
31-07-2020 The Estate Officer(H) Gmada, Punjab & Others Versus Balwinder Kumar Bhola National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Three C Universal Developers Private Limited & Others Versus Horizon Crest India Real Estate & Others High Court of Delhi
24-07-2020 Nirmal Singh Versus Horizon Crest India Real Estate & Others High Court of Delhi
01-07-2020 Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Mohan Co Operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi & Others Versus Jose George Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-06-2020 Anand Vaid Versus Preety Vaid & Others High Court of Delhi
28-05-2020 Anand Vaid Versus Preety Vaid & Others High Court of Delhi
05-05-2020 The Manager, Wallardie Estate, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., Vandiperiyar, Represented by Senior Manager (Legal), Sumith Babu Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
22-04-2020 Anand Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-03-2020 S.M. Anand Versus A. Ramasamy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Mythe Estate, Kaithu, Shimla, Himachala Pradesh Versus Bir Singh Rana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-03-2020 Abhishek Anand & Another Versus M/s. SBO Exports Private Limited National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
24-02-2020 Vijay Anand & Another Versus Vedic Conclave Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-02-2020 Pushparani Versus The Management of Chattan Estate, Kolakambai, The Nilgiris District & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Principal Commissioner Goods & Service Tax Delhi South Versus Premium Real Estate Developers High Court of Delhi
18-02-2020 M/s. Anand Developers, through its Authorized Representative Ashish V. Prabhu Verlekar Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1) & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
14-02-2020 Anand Teltumbde & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-02-2020 Head of the Regional Office, Idea Cellular Ltd., Mercy Estate, Kochi & Another Versus G. Raman Pillai Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
07-02-2020 Anand @ Prem Anand & Another Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur District High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 Anjuman V/S The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
03-02-2020 S.M. Anand Vel Versus The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Real Pro Assets Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director Chandigarh Versus Pankaj Mittal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-02-2020 Lakshmi Rauschenbach, Rep. by Power of Attorney Anand Sasidharan Versus Valuesource Technologies (P) Ltd, Rep. by its Director Christian Lippens & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi & Another Versus Reji Paul Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
24-01-2020 South Indian Artistes' Association, Rep. by its General Secretary, T. Nagar Versus The Registrar of Societies, South Chennai, District Registrar (Admin), Guindy Industrial Estate, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 Kurama Anand Prakash Versus The State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
22-01-2020 Laxmi Industrial Estate V/S State of Maharashtra Greater Mumbai, Through Ministry of Revenue & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-01-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government Department of Home, Chennai & Others Versus S. Anand & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 E. Mohammed Misraan Versus RRB Energy Limited, Represented by The Head Operations, GA – 1/B-1 Extension, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2020 Ajay Anand & Others Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-01-2020 Estate Officer & Another Versus Shankarbhai Rajeshbhai Soni High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
13-01-2020 Abhishek Anand Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-01-2020 Sameer Anand Mere Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-01-2020 Landbase India Limited through A. Anand Rao, Authorized Signatory, Gurgaon Versus State of Haryana through Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Town & Country Planning Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
03-01-2020 Anand & Another Versus Union of India, Through Ministry of Agricultural & Farmers Welfare & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-12-2019 Eden Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Seema Mukherjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-12-2019 Bhavik Bhimjiyani & Others Vs. Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-12-2019 Starlight Real Estate (Ascot) Mauritius Limited & Another Versus Jagrati Trade Services Private Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-12-2019 Anand Versus Renganathan High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-11-2019 A. Anand Versus S. Sekar High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 M/s. Hallmark Capital Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Anand Jain, T. Nagar, Chennai Versus The District Collector, Kanchipuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 M. Velumurugan Versus The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Zari Limited, Industrial Estate, Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 K. Ramesh Versus The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Zari Limited, Industrial Estate, Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors Versus Edwards on behalf of the estate of the late Thomas Arthur Watkins United Kingdom Supreme Court
19-11-2019 Shalimar Estate (P) Ltd. Through Managing Director, Chandigarh Versus Saroj Bala Verma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-11-2019 Anand Rao Korada Resolution Professional Versus M/s. Varsha Fabrics (P) Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 The Management, Tamilnadu Khadi and Village, Industries Board, Represented by its Assistant Director, Chennai Versus The Workman, Represented by the Secretary, Industrial Estate General Workers Union, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-11-2019 Gopal Metal Containers (P) Ltd., Guindy Industrial Estate, Presently at Royapuram, Represented by its Director G. Sekar Versus The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-11-2019 Thomas Koshy Chirayil & Another Versus Anand Rosh Bose & Another High Court of Kerala
07-11-2019 Anand Mishra & Another Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-11-2019 Senior Bhosale Estate(Huf) Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Supreme Court of India
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
25-10-2019 Anand Prakash Versus Mansha Kumari High Court of Judicature at Patna
25-10-2019 Estate Officer (Urban Estate Ludhiana) & Another Versus Jaswant Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-10-2019 M/s. EOS GmbH-India Branch, Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Prakasam Anand (Country Manager), Kolathur Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-10-2019 S. Ravi & Others Versus Dev Anand Vijayan, Executive Director, The Management of Sri Karthikeya Spinning & Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., Formerly known as Perur Engineering Products, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-10-2019 Dr. Anand Utture Versus Girish Moreshwar Rege & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-10-2019 Grace Estate Development Venture & Others Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-10-2019 Ramawatar Babulal Jajodia & Another Versus Rajeev Anand & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-10-2019 Anand Palan & Another Versus State of Goa Through its Chief secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
01-10-2019 V. Jothiraman @ Ramesh Anand Versus R. Nalini & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2019 Nirmal Versus Alankar Real Estate (Pvt) Ltd. & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-09-2019 S. Anand & Others Versus A. Jeyabalan & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-09-2019 Management of Nadumalai Estate (North) Unit of Periakaramalai Tea Produce Co.Ltd., Valparai Post Versus The Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2019 Mahesh Sharma Versus Maskara Tea Estate High Court of Gauhati
20-09-2019 Revenue Bar Association, Represented by its Secretary, Duwari Anand, Chennai & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-09-2019 ATS Estate Pvt. Ltd. Versus Meenu Yadav National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-09-2019 Municipal Council Neemuch Versus Mahadeo Real Estate & Others Supreme Court of India
17-09-2019 M. Muthampalam & Others Versus The Manager, Vellakadai Peak 'B' Estate, Kaveri Peak Post, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-2019 K. Arumugam & Others Versus The Manager, Vellakadai Peak 'A' Estate, Yercaud, Salem District & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-09-2019 Pragatisheel Engineering Shramik Sangh Industrial Estate, Chhattisgarh Versus Simplex Castings Ltd, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-09-2019 Anand Ramdhani Chaurasia & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-09-2019 P. Tamilselvan Versus The Management, Waterfall Estate (West), Waterfall Estate Post, Valparai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-09-2019 The Management of Shekkalmudi Estate, M/s. Parry Agro Industries Limited, Murugali Bazaar (P), Valparai, Coimbatore DT, Represented by its Assistant General Manager P & IR Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2019 The State of Maharashtra & Others Versus M/s. Moti Ratan Estate & Another Supreme Court of India
21-08-2019 Shailesh Anand Kulkarni Versus Khandesh College Education Society & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
20-08-2019 M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies (Pvt.) Ltd., Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai, Rep. by Authorised Signatory, P. Sirajudeen Versus Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-08-2019 N. Magesh Versus State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing II, Govt.Estate, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-08-2019 The Management of Pannimedu Estate, Represented by its Manager, Coimbatore Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-08-2019 The Commissioner of Police & Others Versus Devender Anand & Others Supreme Court of India
08-08-2019 Adarsh Estate Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Maryadit (Proposed) Versus State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
06-08-2019 D. Chakraborti & Another Versus Shipra Estate Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-08-2019 Anand Ramachandra Chougule & Another Versus Sidarai Laxman Chougala & Others Supreme Court of India
05-08-2019 Jatinder Singh Anand & Others Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
30-07-2019 Aswathy Udayan Versus Prince Anand & Others High Court of Kerala
26-07-2019 Western Coalfields Limited, Coal Estate, Civil Lines Versus Neeta & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-07-2019 Anand Ballabh Pathak Versus Mahendra Singh Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dehradun
23-07-2019 Indian Shipping and Logistics Facility Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Director, Periyanayagapuram, Tuticorin Versus V.O.Chidambaranar Port Trust, Rep.by its Chairman, Administrative Office, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
22-07-2019 Life Care Real Developers Limited & Others Versus Ld. Adjudicating Officer Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
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
17-07-2019 Monica Anand Kumar & Another Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
11-07-2019 Chennai Non Woven's Private Limited represented by its Authorised Secretary T. Sreenivasan, Ambattur Industrial Estate Chennai Versus State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government Environment and Forest (EC2) Department Fort St. George, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-07-2019 Anand Ashok Kamble Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
01-07-2019 Anand Institute of International Studies, Through Shrimati Arun Pal Anand(Prop/Director), Madhya Pradesh Versus Sani Jaggi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-07-2019 H.K. Anand Versus S. Gurcharan Singh Bhasin & Others High Court of Delhi