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



Awadheswari Prasad Narain Singh v/s Priti Garments Patna


Company & Directors' Information:- D R GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101GJ2005PTC046010

Company & Directors' Information:- R. R. GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1995PLC095544

Company & Directors' Information:- S G GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2004PLC098193

Company & Directors' Information:- K K P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921TZ1994PTC005334

Company & Directors' Information:- N K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2000PTC107093

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2005PTC101896

Company & Directors' Information:- G AND A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101PB1995PTC016121

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1996PTC083315

Company & Directors' Information:- G. M. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2006PTC152683

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND D GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1975PTC007923

Company & Directors' Information:- J S GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2009PTC135262

Company & Directors' Information:- K. B . GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2011PTC166954

Company & Directors' Information:- A K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2015PTC282847

Company & Directors' Information:- D P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2004PTC129479

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143084

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P GARMENTS PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143556

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101HR2005PTC068124

Company & Directors' Information:- L. H. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17121KA2011PTC060761

Company & Directors' Information:- K R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111WB1998PTC087046

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52321TN1993PTC025318

Company & Directors' Information:- P. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204DL2007PTC164238

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17121DL2007PTC165007

Company & Directors' Information:- T S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51494DL1996PTC076668

Company & Directors' Information:- GARMENTS INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909GJ1979PTC003310

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC164404

Company & Directors' Information:- B G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC142488

Company & Directors' Information:- S P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC120709

Company & Directors' Information:- P N GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2004PTC127524

Company & Directors' Information:- V P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18109DL2012PTC233293

Company & Directors' Information:- S T GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2015PTC277043

Company & Directors' Information:- P L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2013PTC248417

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC164395

Company & Directors' Information:- R A GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC123385

Company & Directors' Information:- C S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC134787

Company & Directors' Information:- B L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC136912

Company & Directors' Information:- B D S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC137898

Company & Directors' Information:- T G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143392

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U18101DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- G P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC161067

Company & Directors' Information:- I B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2013PTC257044

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U74110DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- A G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51300DL2013PTC257609

Company & Directors' Information:- V R V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2008PTC182256

Company & Directors' Information:- M V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899HR2005PTC141797

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17120HR2013PTC049037

Company & Directors' Information:- V K GARMENTS PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1981PTC012410

Company & Directors' Information:- A S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17212CH1992PTC012350

Company & Directors' Information:- V R GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101CH1991PTC011345

Company & Directors' Information:- S B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2005PTC141954

    Decided On, 20 May 2009

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHEEMA ALI KHAN

    For the Appearing Parties: Jasbir Singh Arora, Prasoon Sinha, Shishir Kumar, V. Nath, Waliur Rahman, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(1.) THE plaintiffs-petitioners are the landlords who had filed a suit for eviction from a shop situated in a building known as "vishwash (Amawan House)" situated in North Krishnapuri in the town of Patna.

(2.) THE suit for eviction has been filed on the ground of personal necessity under Section 11 (1) (C) of the Bihar Building (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and hence the suit is being filed under Section 14 of the Act.

(3.) BY the impugned order dated 20-1-2009 the Munsif, III. Patna has allowed the opposite party No. 4 to be added as party in place of his mother Smt. Rajyashree Sinha who died during the pendency of the suit along with the partners of M/s. Priti Garments having the business in the name and style of M/s. "bachpan His and Her's" who have been impleaded as defendants 2 to 4.

(4.) THE eviction suit was filed in the year 2001. It would be important to state a few facts with respect to title eviction suit No. 34 of 2001. The defendants appeared in this suit and took permission under Section 14 (4) of the Act for grant of leave to contest. The leave was granted and thereafter the defendant adopted the grounds taken in the special leave application as her written statement. The rest of the defendants who are partners of the said firm described above did not appear, nor did they choose to contest the same and hence the suit proceeded ex-parte against them. The evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners commenced by examination of P. W. 1 on 19-11-2004 and the plaintiffs evidence concluded on 17-4-2007. The evidence on behalf of the defendants began on 18-5-2007. 13 witnesses were examined. The last witness was examined on behalf of the defendants on 3-6-2008. The defendant No. 4 unfortunately died on 19-6-2008 and she could not examine herself as a witness.

(5.) ON 20-10-2008 it was brought to the notice of the Court that defendant No. 4 has died and a petition was filed on 15-9-2008 in pursuance of direction given by the court below on 29-8-2008. The Court while considering whether the substitution petition should be allowed by the plaintiffs held that since the tenancy is in favour of partnership firm, the provisions of Order XXX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') will apply in case of death of the partnership firm. The Munsif also held that the legal heirs of the deceased partner may approach the Court to be added as partner and finally ordered that the plaintiffs are directed to file any document to show that the defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are its partners and after the petition was filed the order dated 20-10-2008 was passed holding therein that there is a prima facie case that the defendant No. 4 was the partner of defendant No. 1 and as such it would not be necessary to join the legal representatives of the deceased as party to the suit.

(6.) ON 17-11-2008 one Amitesh Anand filed a petition stating that he is the legal heir of defendant No. 4 and that he should be impleaded as party in the eviction suit. An objection was, raised on behalf of the plaintiffs who stated that Amitesh Anand is not a necessary party in the suit as he is not a partner in the firm and no substitution is necessary under Order XXX Rule 4 (2) (a) of the Code. By this impugned order the Court allowed Amitesh Anand to be added as party in the interest of justice for proper adjudication of the case. This order has been challenged in this Court.

(7.) THE plaintiffs-petitioners have submitted that the son of the defendant No. 4 is neither a partner in the firm nor does he have any interest in the firm and as such he is not required to be substituted in place of defendant No. 4. It is further submitted that the Court below has not appreciated the provisions of Order XXX Rule 4 (2){a) of the Code while passing the order. Order XXX rule 4 reads as follows :-

4. Right of suit on death of partner.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 45 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), where two or more persons may sue or be sued in the name of a firm under the foregoing provisions and any of such person dies, whether before the institution or during the pendency of any suit, it shall not be necessary to join the legal representative of the deceased as a party to the suit.

(2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall limit or otherwise affect any right which the legal representative of the deceased may have- (a) to apply to be made a party to the suit, or (b) to enforce any claim against the survivor or survivors.

(8.) RULE 4 envisages that where two or more persons sued or are sued in the name of a firm under the foregoing provisions i. e. provisions of Order XXX of the Code and if such person dies whether before institution of the suit or during the pendency of the suit it shall not be necessary to join the legal heir as a party to the suit. This Rule provides that in a suit in the name of a firm, it is not necessary to join the legal representatives of the deceased partner the decree against the firm binds only the interest of the deceased partner in the partnership as such, it is not intended that the suit include the representative of the deceased partner.

(9.) IN order to support the contention that the legal representative of the deceased partner are not to be substituted in the suit instituted by or against the firm or the partners of the firm the petitioners have relied on the decisions which are The Upper India cable Co. and Ors. v. Bal Kishan (AIR 1984 sc 1381), Laxami Narayan Rice Mills and Anr. v. The State Bank of India, Deoghar (AIR 1996 Pat. 70), Anokhe Lal v. Radhamohan bansal and Ors. (AIR 1997 SC 257).

(10.) THE scope of Order XXX Rule 4 has been discussed in the case of The Upper india Cable Co. and Others' case. In this case the firm was impleaded as a tenant and the partners were impleaded merely as proper parties against whom no reliefs of any kind was prayed for in their personal capacity. The High Court dismissed the second appeal on the ground that the heirs of the deceased partner were not added as party. The supreme Court held that the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased partners had not joined the firm and thus were not entitled to be taken as partners in place of the deceased partners of the firm. Therefore, the question of substituting heirs and legal representatives of the two formal parties does not arise and the death has no impact on the proceeding and the High Court had erred in disposing of the appeal as having abated.

(11.) IN the case of Laxami Narayan Rice mills and another's case (AIR 1996 Pat 70)the facts were that a mortgage suit was filed by the State Bank of India against Laxami narayan Rice Mills, a partnership firm and its partners. During the pendency of the suit one of the partners died. The legal representative of the deceased partner appeared after substituted service and filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the suit as a whole had abated on account of non substitution of heirs of deceased defendant No. 3. A plea was taken that since the firm was not a registered firm the provisions of Order XXX Rule 4 of the code would not apply and the suit would not abate. A civil revision was filed before the Patna High Court in which the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners took a stand that Rule 4 of Order XXX of the Code is not attracted to the facts of the case, as the firm was an unregistered firm relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in M. S. Pearl Sound Engineer v. M/s Pooran chand and Others (AIR 1975 Allahabad 207). The Court has discussed the Allahabad case vis a vis the case under law laid down in upper India Cable Company (AIR 1984 SC 1381) (supra) and held that in view of the fact that the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased partner has not taken a plea that he is inducted as a partner of the firm it cannot be said that he/she should be added as a party in the suit. Thus the Patna high Court has distinguished the judgment reported in A. I. R. 1975 Allahabad 207 and relied on the Supreme Court judgment as well as the judgment of the full bench reported in The Upper India Cable Co. and Ors. v. Bal Kishan (referred to above). Similar is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anokhe Lal v. Radhamohan Bansal and Others (AIR 1997 SC 257) wherein the supreme Court has held that paragraph 8 sub-rule I or Rule IV in Order XXX of the code provides that it is not mandatory to join the legal representative of a deceased partner as party in the suit. What sub-Rule (2) says in other words is that Rule 1 is not a hindrance of any legal representative of a deceased partner to get himself impleaded if he has otherwise any right to do so. It is, therefore, clear that sub-rule (2) does not create any right as such for a legal representative to get impleaded in a suit but it operates as an exception to sub-rule (1). At any rate, Rule 4 (2) of Order XXX cannot come into operation in a situation where order I Rule 10 of the Code cannot be invoked.

(12.) IN the present case it is nobody's contention/case that the heir or legal representative of the defendant No. 4 joined as a partner in the firm and as such he would have legal interest in the farm, until he could have shown that after the death of defendant no. 3 his name was included in the partnership firm.

(13.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties on the other hand submits that Order XXX is an enabling provision which allows two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in India may sue or be sued in the name of the firm of which such persons were partners at the time when the cause of action accrued. It also provides that any party in a case may ask the Court for statement of the names and addresses of the persons who were at the time of accruing of the cause of action partners in such firm, to be furnished and verify in such manner as the Court may direct.

(14.) THE opposite parties have relied on purushottam Umed Bhai and Company v. M/s. Mani Lal and Sons (AIR 1961 SC 325) to argue that the legal representative and heir have a right to be substituted as heirs. In this case the Supreme Court has explained the necessity of the introduction of Order xxx in the Code. Earlier suits were instituted particularly in the Muffasil Courts in the name of the firms or were instituted against a firm in the firm name and no objection was generally taken. This practice was largely based on the presumption that the suit concerned was either by the partners of the firm or against all the partners of the firm. If however, an objection was to be taken that the suit in the name of a firm is not maintainable because the firm has no legal entity the Court would have to decide whether the suit had been instituted by non existing person. If so the suit was not maintainable. Therefore, it became necessary to introduce Order XXX in the Code. The law laid down in Purushottam's case does not help the opposite party in substantiating the stand that there is a necessity of substituting the heir and legal representative of defendant No. 4 and the suit would otherwise abate because of such non substitution.

(15.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties argues that the provisions of Order xxx would not apply in the facts of this case as according to the counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties the pleadings do not disclose that the suit was filed against a firm or its partners. From perusal of the plaint which is annexure-1 to the petition it appears that defendant No. 5 is M/s. Priti garments a partnership firm being represented by Rajyashree Sinha. Defendant No. 2 is Smt. Jayshri Chandra. Defendant No. 3 is Mrs. Nawalika Sharma and defendant no. 4 is Mrs. Rajyashree Sinha (she died during the pendency of this suit). Paragraphs 1,2,3 and 5 would indicate that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had jointly approached and had represented that they established a firm.

(16.) IN view of the pleadings made this court at this stage cannot doubt that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the partners of m/s. Priti Garments and that is also the finding of the Trial Court on perusal of the documents.

(17.) IN view of the discussio

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ns aforesaid and on the basis of the law laid down by the supreme Court the order dated 20-1-2009 substituting Amitesh Anand as defendant is set aside. The civil revision is allowed. I also direct that the suit should be expeditiously disposed of preferably within a period of three months since it has been filed in 2001 on the ground of personal necessity. C. R. No. 1747 of 2006 (18.) THIS civil revision has been filed by defendant No. 3 who died during the pendency of the civil revision challenging the order by which the Court has rejected the application of defendant No. 3 making a prayer to reject the lease deed filed on behalf of the plaintiff in evidence. The case of the plaintiff opposite party is that there is no provision under the Code to take out a document which has already been filed and exhibited in the suit. The Court in my opinion has rightly rejected the defendant No. 3's application. (19.) IN the said civil revision I. A. No. 5739 of 2008 has been filed making a prayer to expunge the name of petitioner No. 1 (defendant No. 3)Mrs. Rajyashree Sinha who died on 9-6-2008 and substitute her husband and son as legal heirs and representatives. (20.) THE I. A. Application filed in civil revision 1747 of 2006 is rejected for the reasons mentioned in civil revision No. 337 of 2009. The civil revision is thus dismissed. Revision dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

13-01-2020 Union of India rep. By its Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai Versus M/s. Raiments & Garments International, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 The General Manager, Aleppy Parcel Service, Alappuzha Versus Anil Kumar V., Managing Partner, Wetex Garments, Poovattuparamba, Kozhikode Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
22-11-2019 The Management Scotts Garments Limited, Trippur Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-10-2019 M/s. PJS Knit Garments, Rep.by its Partner, P. Sugansaran & Another Versus The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Tirupur Main Branch, Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2019 M/s. Indo Skins Garments Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, N. Thiagarajan, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2019 The Officer In Charge, Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office & Another Versus M/s Godavari Garments Limited Supreme Court of India
05-04-2019 The District Collector, Kanchipuram Versus M/s. Gupta Garments, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Anil Gupta & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 M/s. Ginni Garments & Another Versus M/s. Sethi Garments & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
04-04-2019 Ginni Garments and Others V/S Sethi Garments and Others. In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
13-03-2019 The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Salem Division & Others Versus M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor Ibrahim Sha, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-12-2018 Batra Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-12-2018 Goodluck Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus., Surat-II High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-09-2018 M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor, Ibrahim Sha, Chennai Versus The Divisional Railway Manager, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2018 Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (Now ECGC Limited), Chennai & Another Versus Zoro Garments Private Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, N.F. Mogrella High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 M/s. Rasathe Garments, Rep by its Partner, Virudhunagar Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I, Virudhunagar High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 Bord for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) Versus Coromandel Garments Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-04-2018 M/s. Sri Rengas Avitta Garments, Represented by its Partner, R. Rajaram & Another Versus R. Indira High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2018 Kandukuri Garments Versus Inspector of Legal Metrology High Court of Karnataka
02-01-2018 A. Velumurugan Versus M/s. Sree Shiva Sakthi Garments, Represented by its Partner Venkatachalam, Tiruppur High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-07-2017 Creative Garments Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E. & S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
10-02-2017 The Management of Foundation Garments Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director ?Divine Grace? Versus Government of Tamil Nadu Labour & Employment (A1) Department, Represented by its Principal Secretary High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-01-2017 R.K. Rajkumar Proprietor M/s. Koghima Garments Versus The Registrar Debts Recovery Tribunal - III Spencer Towers Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2017 Kitex Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director-Sabu M. Jacob Versus State of Kerala, represented by Principal Secretary To Government, Taxes (H) Department & Another High Court of Kerala
02-01-2017 Sonal Garments V/S Commr. of Cus., Seaport (Import), Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
15-09-2016 M/s. Rasathe Garments Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I (FAC) Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-09-2016 Carol Garments & Another Versus The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-06-2016 M/s. Oxygen the Digital Shop, Pulimoottil Arcade, Kottayam & Another Versus Namadevan.L., Anna Garments & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
12-02-2016 M/s. Anjal Garments Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2015 Provident Fund Commissioner Versus M/s. Bena Garments High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2015 M/s. Triven Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director & Others Versus State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2015 SCM Garments (P.) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-III, Coimbatore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
18-12-2014 Nelly Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
26-11-2014 Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-II Versus Ankit Garments Manufacturing Co. High Court of Delhi
07-11-2014 KMC Textiles & Garments, rep.by its Proprietor, Shaj Mohammed Versus The Chief Manager & Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Trichy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-10-2014 Board of Investment of Sri Lanka Versus Million Garments (PVT) Ltd. Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
28-08-2014 Sakthi Fashions, Manufacturers & Exporters of Fabrics and Garments, Represented by its Proprietrix Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, Represented by its General Manager Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
11-06-2014 National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus M/s. Ess Ell Garments Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
01-05-2014 Sri Priyaluckshmi Garments Represented by Mrs. G. Mahalakshmi, Partner & Others Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-04-2014 Vijay Karlekar, Proprietor, M/s. New Keerthi Garments & Another Versus Karnataka State Financial Corporation & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-04-2014 In Re Jagadamba Garments Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-02-2014 M/s. Lakshya Garments through its Proprietor Versus National Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-09-2013 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Versus M/s. Anjali Silks & Garments High Court of Karnataka
26-04-2013 M/s. Viking Garments, (A Partnership Firm) Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-04-2013 A.J. Ramadoss Versus S. Padmavathy and N. Sankar(spouse) Om Siva Sakthi Garments National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-11-2012 CC&CE, Guntur Versus M/s. Kandukuri Garments (P) Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
12-10-2012 M/s. C.S. Garments & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2012 Commissioner of Income Tax Versus First Garments Manufacturing Co. India (P) Ltd High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-06-2012 M/s. Amex Garments Pvt. Ltd. Ekkattuthangal, Guindy, Rep. by Director Versus The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2012 M/s. Kitex Garments Ltd. Versus CC, Cochin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
23-12-2011 M/S. Shyam Garments & Others Versus State Bank Of India High Court of Delhi
09-11-2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Koregaon Branch Soham Bldg., Rahimatpur Road, Koregaon, Dist. Versus M/s. Prinita Garments Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
03-11-2011 Levi Strauss & Company Versus Nizami Garments High Court of Delhi
25-07-2011 Commissioner of Customs Versus Kitex Garments High Court of Kerala
14-07-2011 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Somesh Readymade Garments National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-04-2011 Anthony Garments Pvt., Ltd., Represented by A. Joseph Antony, Managing Director Versus The Commercial Tax Officer & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-03-2011 M/s.Gayatri Garments Represented by its proprietor Shri.B.Selvakumar Versus Smt.S.Valambal, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2011 M/s. V.K.T. Rajkumar Garments Versus The Colonel, Colonel Administration for Commendent, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2010 M/s. T.K.T. Garments Versus The Manager Sri Balaji Transport Lines & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-10-2010 Dandy Garments Erode Versus The Employees State Insurance Corpn & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2010 M/s. Shyam Garments & Others V/S State Bank of India Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Delhi
18-08-2010 Tvl. V. Win Garments Rep. by its Proprietor Versus The Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-08-2010 M/s. Stallion Garments Versus CC, Tuticorin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
30-07-2010 M/s. Muthuraman Exports (Presently known as M/s. Perfect Stitch Garments P Ltd) Versus The Customs & Central Excise & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-07-2010 Vijay S/o Shamrao Bhale Versus Godavari Garments Ltd. & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-03-2010 Peoples Bank Versus Lokuge International Garments Ltd. Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
18-02-2010 The Management of M/s. Stallion Garments Versus The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2010 M/s. Fine Fit Garments Versus CC, Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
04-01-2010 M/s Shri Ram Garments & Another & Accessories Versus CCE, Meerut Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-08-2009 M/s. Bhakti Garments Versus Subhash B. Vishwakarma In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-06-2009 Riya Garments Private Limited v/s Pratap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Laminations Limited and Others Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Delhi
16-05-2009 Persian Leather Garments Versus Commissioner, Industries & Commerce & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
17-04-2009 Chander Sain & Others Versus J.B. Garments High Court of Delhi
24-02-2009 Kitex Garments Ltd., Versus State Of Kerala High Court of Kerala
05-01-2009 Futuristics Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
18-12-2008 I.T.C. Limited Versus Deepak Garments High Court of Delhi
23-09-2008 Southern Export Corporation A. Rajagopalan Versus Vijayseema Garments And Hosiery Private Limited High Court of Delhi
26-06-2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Ashapura Garments Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-08-2007 CCE Salem Versus V.Tex Garments Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
09-08-2007 P. Vijaya Raghunathan Versus M/s. Green Cotton Garments rep. by its Managing Directors & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-03-2007 Garments India Exports and Another v/s Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited and Another Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Chennai
15-02-2007 Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation Versus J.S. Garments High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-01-2007 Elegant Garments Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-12-2006 (1) In Re : Rbr Knit Process Private Limited; (2) In Re :Rbr Clothings Private Limited; (3) In Re : Rbr Garments Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-10-2006 Angel Garments Limited Versus DIT (International Taxation)Chennai Authority For Advance Rulings Income Tax New Delhi
26-10-2006 Kerala Textile and Garments Dealer Welfare Association and Another Versus The State of Kerale High Court of Kerala
16-03-2006 La Chemise Lacoste & Another Versus R.H. Garments & Others High Court of Delhi
14-03-2006 Rita Garments Versus Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj High Court of Delhi
19-08-2005 Sundaram Finance Services Ltd., rep. by its President, the Principal Officer, having its Office at Deshabandhu Plaza, No. 47, Whites Road, Chennai Versus Shoba Garments (P) Ltd., No. 127-B, Brickkiln Road, Norton Shanmuga Building, II Floor, Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 007 and others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-11-2004 MERBANC FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, PANJAGUTTA VERSUS CHILIPI KRISH GARMENTS (P) LTD. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-07-2004 Garments India Exporters Versus Director of Enforcement Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange New Delhi
21-06-2004 M/s.S.M. Garments Private Limited Versus Inspector General of Registration & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2004 Radhamani India Ltd., Decree-holder Versus Imperial Garments Ltd High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-03-2004 Venkateshwara Garments and Exports and Another V/S Dena Bank Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
07-11-2003 Modesty Garments Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
10-02-2003 M/s.Amarjothi Spinning Mills Ltd. Versus M/s. B.R.B.Garments High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2002 The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, rep. by its Madras North Branch Senior Manager Versus M.S. Gopal, Proprietor, Suki Garments & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2002 M/s. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-08-2002 Sonal Garments Versus Trimbak Shankar Karve High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2002 M/s. Chevron Garments (P) Ltd. 1986 Trichy Main Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore, Rep. by its Managing Director S. Ramanathan Versus Sri Malini Spinning Mills Ltd. (Formerly P.A. Mills Ltd.) Trichy Main Road, Ammapalayam Village Sandhiyur, Attayampatty (via) Mallur, Salem-636 203. Rep. by its Chief Accountant K.S.S. Prakaash High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2002 Plaza Garments Versus Textile Apparels High Court of Delhi