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



BCH Electric Limited v/s Pradeep Mehra


Company & Directors' Information:- BCH ELECTRIC LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31103WB1965PLC026427

Company & Directors' Information:- ELECTRIC CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U40101WB1997PLC084154

Company & Directors' Information:- K R MEHRA & CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15410DL2012PTC234602

Company & Directors' Information:- I T ELECTRIC PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31901TN1978PTC007643

Company & Directors' Information:- B I ELECTRIC COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039350

Company & Directors' Information:- T & D ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31908TN2012PTC085880

Company & Directors' Information:- K & K ELECTRIC COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U31401DL2007PTC164880

Company & Directors' Information:- A. MEHRA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL2000PTC105672

    LPA. No. 97 of 2019 & CM. No. 6534 of 2019 (stay)

    Decided On, 12 February 2019

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

    For the Appellant: Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, Gulshan Chawla, Advocate. For the Respondent: Saurabh Prakash, Kunal Gosain, Utsav Jain, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.

1.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th February, 2019 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant’s writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3385/2018 thereby affirming an order dated 23rd March, 2018 passed by the Appellate Authority (‘AA’) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘PGA’). By the said order dated 23rd March, 2018, the AA had dismissed the appeal of the Appellant, thereby upholding an order dated 31st July, 2017 passed by the Controlling Authority (‘CA’) granting the Respondent Rs.1,73,75,000/- as balance gratuity along with simple interest @ 10 percent per annum from 1st June, 2012 till the date of payment.

2. The facts in brief are that the Respondent joined the Appellant as Chief Operating Officer (‘COO’) on 12th June, 2000 at a starting salary of Rs.12.36 lakhs per annum. Clause 11 of the letter of appointment stated that the Respondent would be entitled to gratuity on becoming eligible ‘as per laws’. The Respondent resigned from the services of the Appellant, more than twelve years later on 1st June 2012, which was accepted. Along with a letter dated 1st June 2012, the Appellant paid him Rs.36,70,015/-. On 9th August, 2012, the Appellant paid the Respondent Rs.10,19,452/- towards gratuity along with the interest from the due date till the date of payment. According to the Appellant, the said sum included the maximum gratuity payable under the PGA i.e. Rs.10 lakhs plus interest.

3. The case of the Respondent, on the other hand, was that he was entitled to a total of Rs.1,83,75,000/- as gratuity for the entire period of his service. He wrote three letters dated 31st August, 2012, 24th September, 2012 and 19th October, 2012 to the Appellant claiming that amount, but it was to no avail. This led the Respondent filing a claim before the CA under Section 7 of the PGA. On 31st July, 2017, based on the affidavits and documents filed before him, the CA passed an order allowing the Respondent’s claim and directing the Appellant to pay the differential sum of Rs.1,73,75,000/- along with simple interest @ 10% per annum for the delayed payment.

4. One of the issues raised by the Appellant before the CA was that he had no jurisdiction to decide the case. The Appellant had an approved gratuity fund called the ‘Bhartia Cutler Hammer Limited Employees Gratuity Fund’, which regulates the gratuity scheme of the company, which was formulated in consonance with the provisions of the PGA. According to the Appellant, Clause 15 read with Rule 6 (b) of the Scheme made it plain that the employees of the Appellant were entitled to gratuity in accordance with the PGA. It was accordingly contended by the Appellant that no amount higher than the maximum permissible under the PGA was payable to an employee as gratuity. An objection was also raised before the CA that he had no jurisdiction to decide the claim of the Respondent for an amount of gratuity beyond the maximum permissible under the PGA.

5. In negativing the above contentions of the Appellant, the CA referred to the decisions in Transport Manager, Kohlapur Municipal Transport Undertaking v. Pravin Bhabhutal Shah 2005 (2) LLJ 104 (Bombay); Ethiopian Islands v. A.N.D. Noel Enricks 2012 3 LLJ 801 (Bombay), Managing Director, Punjab State Cooperative Bank Limited v. Manjit Singh (2011) 3 LLJ 615 (P&H), State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullunder AIR 1979 SC 181, Eastern Coal Field Company Limited v Regional Labour Commissioner 1982 (2) LLJ 324 (Cal), Steel Authority of India v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) 1995 (1) LLJ 1007 (Ori), Ramji Lal Chiman Lai Sharma v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd 1984 LAB IC 1704 (Bom) and concluded that in view of Section 4 (5) of the PGA, an employee could approach the CA to claim gratuity under the more beneficial settlement, award, rule or scheme. The CA held that the PGA permitted an employee to claim before the CA a sum as gratuity higher than the maximum permissible under the PGA. The CA also rejected the plea of the Appellant that merely because it had paid higher gratuity to some individuals, ‘due to a mistake’, it would not entitle the Respondent to claim a higher amount as a matter of right. The CA noted that “in this case, the management has admitted that there were at least 10 such cases. This is not a small number. These were also not disclosed in the reply to the Claims Statement but later in answer to interrogatories. It must therefore be presumed that all payments were knowingly made. Hence such defence cannot be permitted”.

6. The CA then noted that in the pay slip of the Respondent for April, 2012, his basic salary was shown as Rs.24, 50,000/-, which was released to him as salary. This was taken to be the last-drawn salary and the gratuity was, therefore, determined on that basis. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court H. Gangahanume Gowda v Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. (order dated 5th February, 2003 in Civil Appeal No.1024/2003) where it was held that awarding interest under Section 7 (3A) of the PGA is a ‘statutory compulsion’. It was held that the Appellant is bound to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.

7. The appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the AA by an order dated 23rd March, 2018. The AA concurred with the CA and held that the ceiling limit of Rs.10 lakhs provided under Section 4 (3) PGA was not applicable if there was an award, an agreement or a contract between the employer and an employee, which provided for better terms of gratuity. It was noted that the Appellant had allocated 4.81% of the basic wage earned by the Respondent to the gratuity fund. The gratuity fund so created provided better terms of gratuity. It did not provide any ceiling limit to the amount of gratuity.

8. The Appellant then filed W.P. (C) No.3385/2018 in this Court. In support of its plea that the CA had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the Respondent, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association (2010) 2 SCC 44. The learned Single Judge formulated two issues for consideration as under:

“I. In the facts of the present case, can the respondent claim gratuity in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972?

II. While exercising its powers under Section 7(4)(a) and 7(4)(b) of the PGA does the Controlling Authority have the jurisdiction to decide claims in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under Section 4(3)?”

9. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, answered the first issue in the affirmative by referring to Sections 4 (3) and (5) read with Section 7 (4a) and (4b) PGA; Clause 15 of the Appellant’s Gratuity Fund and Rule 6 of the Rules. Reference was also made to para 8 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Workman of Metro Theatre, Bombay v. Metro Theatre Limited, Mumbai, (1981) 3 SCC 596 which reads thus:

“8. The very fact that under the above provision better terms of gratuity could be obtained by an employee by an agreement or contract with the employer notwithstanding the scheme of gratuity' obtaining under the Act clearly suggests that no standardisation of the gratuity scheme contemplated power upon the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment to which the Act applies from the operation of the provisions of the Act if in its opinion the employees in such establishment, are in receipt of gratuity' benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under the Act... It is true, as has been observed, by this Court in State of Punjab V. Labour Court, Jullundur [(1980) I SCC 4 that the Act enacts a complete Code containing detailed provisions covering all essential features of the scheme for payment of gratuity. But it is also clear that the scheme envisaged by the enactment secures the minimum for the employees in that behalf and express provisions are found in the Act under which better terms of gratuity if already existing are not merely preserved but better terms could be conferred on the employee in future... "

10. As regards the second issue, the learned Single Judge noted that as per the Appellant’s own understanding of its Trust Deed dated 19th March, 1979 and the Rules thereunder, “payment of gratuity to the Respondent was never subject to the statutory ceiling limit”. It was noted that while the gratuity of the Respondent was calculated in terms of the rate prescribed under Section 4 (2) of the PGA, the ceiling limit under Section 4 (3) of the PGA was never applied to him during his tenure. Accordingly, it was held that the Respondent was entitled to gratuity as per the rates mentioned in his Executive Emolument Sheets (EES) i.e. 4.81% of his annual basic pay which was consistent with the terms of his appointment, the Trust Deed dated 19th March, 1979 and the rules thereunder but also with the provisions of the PGA. The learned Single Judge also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank (supra) and noted that it was not applicable to the facts of the present case. Likewise, the learned Single Judge also distinguished the decision in Beed District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 8 SCC 514 and held that it was not applicable to the facts in the present case.

11. Mr Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that a conjoint reading of Sections 4 (3) and (5) read with Section 7 PGA did not lead to the conclusion that the CA had jurisdiction to entertain claims that were beyond the maximum ceiling of Rs.10 lakhs under the PGA. He placed extensive reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association (supra).

12. On examining the said decision, it is seen that the issue before the Supreme Court was somewhat different from the issue that arises in the present case. Paragraph 2 of the judgment sets out the question that arose there: “Whether the retired employees of the Appellant bank are entitled to payment of gratuity” under the PGA? The contention of the retired employees of the Bank was that the consent given by them to opt for the pension scheme would not disentitle them to receive gratuity in terms of the PGA. When the Bank rejected this claim, the retired employees’ Association filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad. The Bank in resisting the writ petition contended that that the pension scheme was more advantageous to the retired employees than that of gratuity. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court holding that the retired employees were entitled to the benefit of gratuity in terms of the PGA and directed the Bank to pay them gratuity within a fixed time frame. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.

13. During the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, an order was passed by the Supreme Court directing the parties to appear before the CA and requiring the CA to decide whether the benefits under the pension scheme were more beneficial when compared to the payment of gratuity under the PGA. The CA held that the amount received by the employees under the pension scheme was more than what they could have receive under the PGA. The Retired Employees Association and the Retirees Association filed two writ petitions challenging the order of the CA. These writ petitions were then heard with the pending appeal.

14. The Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank (supra) first agreed with the retired employees’ Association that “that pension and gratuity are separate retiral benefits and right to gratuity is a statutory right.” The Supreme Court rejected the contention of the Bank that its pension scheme was more advantageous than the provisions of the gratuity and that those who had volunteered for the pension were also not entitled to receive gratuity. It was held as under:

30…..it is for the appropriate Government to form the requisite opinion that the employees were in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits which were more favourable than the benefits conferred under the Act and therefore, the establishment must be exempted from the operation of the provisions of the Act. The Bank having failed to obtain exemption from the operation of the provisions of the Act cannot be permitted to raise this plea.

31. No establishment can decide for itself that employees in such establishments were in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 4 protects the rights of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity from its employer under any Award or agreement or contract as the case may be. Admittedly the Scheme under which the employees of the Bank received the pension was in lieu of gratuity. There is no question of comparing the said Scheme and arrive at any conclusion that what they have received was much better in terms than the benefits conferred under the Act. Reliance upon sub-section (5) of Section 4 is therefore unsustainable.”

15. Therefore, the question before the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank (supra) was whether the retired employees were entitled to receive gratuity in addition to the pension they had opted for under the pension scheme. That was answered in the affirmative. It was emphasised that the determination whether the pension scheme was more advantageous when compared to the provisions of the gratuity under the PGA had to be done by the appropriate government. It was in that context, while dealing with the challenge laid by the retired employees’ Association to the order of the CA, the Supreme Court observed as under:

“44. Sub-section (7) of Section 7, provides for an appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority. The Act, nowhere confers any jurisdiction upon the Controlling Authority to deal with any issue under sub- section (5) of Section 4 as to whether the terms of gratuity payable under any Award or agreement or contract is more beneficial to employees than the one provided for payment of gratuity under the Act. This Court's order could not have conferred any such jurisdiction upon the Controlling Authority to decide any matter under sub-section (5) of Section 4, since the Parliament in its wisdom had chosen to confer such jurisdiction only upon the appropriate Government and that too for the purposes of considering to grant exemption from the operation of the provisions of the Act.”

16. Therefore, it is clear that the above observations of the Supreme Court were in the context of an employer being granted exemption from applicability of the PGA and not so much as the jurisdiction of the CA to decide a claim made by an employee for gratuity with reference to a scheme of an employer which provided better terms of gratuity. As rightly concluded by the learned Single Judge, all that was held in Allahabad Bank (supra) was that the CA did not have the power to decide “whether an employer is exempt from paying gratuity under the said Act, merely because it finds that the employer's internal scheme for pensionary benefits is better than the statutory scheme for gratuity”. Such power had been granted only to the appropriate government. On this proposition, there is no difficulty whatsoever.

17. However, in the present case, the issue is something else. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not persuaded to differ from the concurrent views expressed by the CA, the Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge that there is no restriction of the jurisdiction of the CA under Section 7 PGA to entertain a claim for gratuity which may be beyond the upper limit payable under the PGA.

18. The decision in Beed District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (supra) also turned on a different set of facts. There, the employees had opted for the Scheme of the Management which was less advantageous than the PGA. Their plea that they should be given gratuity as per the then upper limit as per the PGA was negatived. It was held by the Supreme Court that an employee while reserving his right to opt for the beneficent provisions of the statute or the agreement had to opt “for either of them and not the best of the terms of the statute as well as those of the contract.” In the present case, the Appellant’s Gratuity Scheme, which was relied upon by the Respondent, itself provided for the rates as per Section 4 (2) of the PGA but without the upper limit under Section 4 (3) PGA. By opting for the Appellant’s Scheme, the Respondent did not lose the benefit of Section 4 (2) PGA.

19. Mr. Sethi then submitted that under the Gratuity Scheme of the Appellant what was payable, even after applying the rates under the PGA, was not more than 4.81% of the basic salary of the respondent for all the years of his service which, according to the Appellant worked out to only Rs. 57.07 lakhs. In other words, he questioned the calculation of gratuity by the Appellant.

20. The Court finds that not all elements of the PGA have been adopted in the Gratuity Scheme of the Appellant. While the ‘rate’ stipulated under Section 4(2) PGA has been adopted, the ceiling limit under Section 4(3) of the PGA has not. As noted both by the CA and the learned Single Judge, has noted how the Appellant itself calculated the gratuity not just in the case of the Respondent but in the cases of ten other employees. The Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of the Appellant would decide the emoluments of the Respondent and issue EES which invariably cont

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ained an entry towards gratuity, which amount was computed at the rate of 4.81% of the Respondent's annual basic salary. The EES were issued under the signature of the CMD before being handed over to the Respondent in original, thereby becoming a part of the contract between the Appellant and the Respondent. In 2007-08 the gratuity amount was Rs.6,34,920/-, which was nearly twice the then ceiling limit of Rs.3.5 lakhs under the PGA. In 2011-12 it was Rs. 11,54,400/- which was higher than the ceiling limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. 21. The CA has in his order dealt with the calculation of the gratuity amount payable to the Respondent in some detail. He noted that the Appellant had produced his pay slip for the month of April 2102 which showed his monthly basic salary to be Rs. 24,50,000. The increase in salary, according to the Respondent, was authorised by the CMD in 2011 and was in fact paid to him. The CA then observed: “once the payment has been released to the employee towards salary, the burden to prove that that it was not actual salary lies on the management and presumption arises that the amount actually drawn was his salary.” The CA noted that the Appellant “failed to clarify in their pleadings as well as in their evidence as to how the said amount was unauthorizedly paid.” The CA then proceeded to compute the gratuity by taking Rs. 24,50,000 to be the last drawn salary of the respondent and applying the rate as per Section 4 (2) PGA. This being a purely factual determination, on the basis of the evidence placed before the CA, the learned Single Judge could not possibly have interfered with it while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 22. There are no grounds made out for interference with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The application for stay is also dismissed. CMs 6535-6536/2019 (exemption) 23. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

22-09-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
27-08-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
12-08-2020 Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking through its General Manager & Another Versus Sadashiv Dnyandeo Gaikwad & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-06-2020 Rahul Mehra @ Daddu Versus State of Karnataka, State by Ramanagara Rural Police, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
29-04-2020 BCH Electric Limited Versus Pradeep Mehra Supreme Court of India
05-02-2020 Punjab Electric And Watch Co. & Another Versus Sunita Jatav Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
28-01-2020 M/s. Elgi Electric & Industries Limited, Rep. by General Manager, Coimbatore Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Trichy Road Assessment Circle, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Parsvnath Developers Limited Versus Sangeeta Mehra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-12-2019 ISNI Electric Power Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
01-11-2019 Mehra Cosmetics Versus Ram Kumar Gulati & Others High Court of Delhi
11-10-2019 Less Than Equals Three Services Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Paras Mehra & Others High Court of Delhi
23-09-2019 Thirumayam Rural Electric Co-operative Society, Represented by its Special Officer, Pudukkottai Versus Thirumayam Rural Electric Co-operative Society, (Affiliated to T.N.Elec. Workers Central Organisation) Represented by its Secretary, Thirumayam & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-09-2019 General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa & Others Versus Sri Giridhari Sahu & Others Supreme Court of India
21-08-2019 Union of India & Others Versus T.R. Mehra Supreme Court of India
13-08-2019 S.P. Satyanarayana Versus Management of Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
17-07-2019 Atul Gulati & Another Versus Varsha Mehra & Others High Court of Delhi
04-06-2019 Schneider Electric IT Business India Private Limited Rep.by its Authorized Signatory, T.A. Badrinarayanan, Chennai Versus State Tax Officer, Adyar Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2019 Sunil Ratnaparkhi & Another Versus Official Liquidator of M/a Satwik Electric Controls Pvt Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-05-2019 Vijay Mehra Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
01-05-2019 Maharashtra Archery Association Versus Rahul Mehra & Others Supreme Court of India
01-05-2019 Commissioner of Trade & Taxes, Delhi & Others Versus Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Super Agencies, M/s. Ingram Micro India Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
15-04-2019 Ashok Kumar Mehra & Another Versus The State of Punjab Supreme Court of India
02-04-2019 Ashok Mehra Versus Enforcement Officer High Court of Punjab and Haryana
18-03-2019 North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Another High Court of Meghalaya
27-02-2019 Sunder Lal Mehra Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh
22-02-2019 C & S Electric Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Industries & Another High Court of Delhi
19-02-2019 Shravan. A. Mehra & Another Versus Superintendent of Central Tax, Represented by the Authorised Officer & or Prosecutor Attached this Honble Court High Court of Karnataka
06-02-2019 M/s. BCH Electric Limited Versus Pradeep Mehra & Others High Court of Delhi
05-02-2019 Parvin Mehra & Others Versus The Arya Samaj, Lawrence Road, Amritsar & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
01-02-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation - 3 Versus Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
11-01-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Versus Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
10-01-2019 Sangeeta Mehra & Another Versus M/s. Parsvnath Developers Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
08-01-2019 Thomas Gervase & Another Versus Ravin Mehra High Court of Delhi
04-01-2019 Ram Das Mehra Versus Sunil Kumar Gupta High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-12-2018 Sun Electric Pte Ltd & Another Versus Menrva Solutions Pte Ltd & Another Supreme Court of Singapore
20-11-2018 M. Latha & Another Versus The Junior Electric Engineer TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-11-2018 Ajay Mehra Versus M/s. Reebok India Company & Another Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
26-10-2018 Tripat Chaudhary & Another Versus Arundhati Sapru Mehra & Another High Court of Delhi
23-10-2018 North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited & Another Commissioner of Income Tax & Another High Court of Meghalaya
08-10-2018 Deepak Mehra & Others Versus M/s. EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Others Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
04-10-2018 Station Manager, Joynagore Group Electric Supply W.B.S.E.D.C. Ltd. Versus Lalmohan Bayen & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
28-08-2018 Ashwani Kumar Mehra Versus Canara Bank High Court of Delhi
20-07-2018 Sunil Mehra Versus The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
12-07-2018 Arvind Kumar Mehra Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
02-07-2018 Monika Mehra & Another Versus State & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
30-05-2018 CDR Rohit Mehra (0369W) Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
29-05-2018 Ajay Mehra V/S C.E, C. & C.G.S.T., Delhi-1 Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
04-05-2018 Sk. Moula Neaj Versus The Station Manager, Anandapore Group Electric Supply WBSEDCL & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-04-2018 Schneider Electric Employees Union C/O Trade Unions Office Versus The Management of M/S Schneider Electric It Business India Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-03-2018 Satyendra Kumar Mehra @ Satendera Kumar Mehra Versus State of Jharkhand Supreme Court of India
20-03-2018 M/s. Emerging Valley (P) Ltd. & Another Versus Kirti Mehra & Others Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
15-01-2018 Sanjay Mehra Versus Kores India Ltd. High Court of Delhi
12-01-2018 Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I V/S Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
12-01-2018 M/s. Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its GPA Holder Vikas Srivastava Versus United Telecoms Limited, Rep. by its Director C. Basavapurnaiah High Court of Karnataka
10-01-2018 Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. Represented herein by its, Assistant Manager (Finance - CFD), K.R. Karibasappa & Others Versus The State of Karnataka Represented herein by the Principal Secretary - Finance Department & Others High Court of Karnataka
18-12-2017 Schneider Electric Infrastructure Ltd V/S Commissioner, LTU, Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
15-12-2017 M/s. Schneider electric IT Business India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by K.N. Prasad, General Manager-Human Resources Versus M/s. American Power Conversion (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd. Employees' Union, Represented by its General Secretary, Rohithashwa & Another High Court of Karnataka
04-12-2017 Tvl. Shandong Teijun Electric Power Engineering Company Limited, Rep. by its Vice President, Project Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Chidambaram & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-11-2017 Schneider Electric Infrastructure Ltd V/S CCE & ST, LTU, Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
31-10-2017 Rahul Mehra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
30-10-2017 Krishan Murari Mehra Versus State High Court of Delhi
26-10-2017 Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
22-09-2017 HPL electric & Power Limited V/S CCE, New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
18-09-2017 Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Shandong Tiejun Electric Power Engineering Co. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-09-2017 M/s. Schneider Electric it Business Pvt Ltd., Represented by Director Ashish Kumar & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
30-08-2017 ST-CMS Electric Company Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
18-08-2017 Ramesh Kumar Mehra Versus Ajay Kumar Barman (Khettry) & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-08-2017 Rahul Mehra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
07-08-2017 Md. Ekbal Hossain Versus Station Manager/A. En. Kolaghat CCC/Group Electric Supply, WBSEDCL Kolaghat, Dist. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-08-2017 Station Manager, WBSEDCL Kolaghat CCC Group Electric Supply, Kolaghat, & Another Versus Sk. Mohommad Ekbal Hossain West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
02-08-2017 Mohinder Kumar Mehra Versus Roop Rani Mehra High Court of Delhi
17-07-2017 West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. Versus Dongfang Electric Corporation High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-07-2017 Mahindra Reva Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
19-05-2017 Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd. Versus Kamal Kishore Mittal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-05-2017 Ameeta Mehra Versus Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv)-Unit & Another High Court of Delhi
16-05-2017 Ameeta Mehra Versus Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv)-Unit & Another High Court of Delhi
15-05-2017 Arup Kumar Sarmah Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Meghalaya
08-05-2017 Mehrangarh Museum Trust through Secretary, Reg. Office Umaid Bhawan & Others Versus Inder Singh Mehra & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
13-04-2017 Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex., Pune-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
11-04-2017 B.D. Bansal & Co. Versus Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-04-2017 Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Pune I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
29-03-2017 Nalini Mehra Versus Group Captain H. Kaushal & Another Supreme Court of India
17-02-2017 Bansal Electric Works V/S Commissioner of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Noida Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
06-02-2017 Barun Halder Versus Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-01-2017 Yogendra Mehra Versus State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
21-12-2016 Electric Construction & Equipment Company Ltd. Versus Raj Luxmi Investment & Trading Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-11-2016 Management , M/s. Schneider Electric I.T. Business India Private Ltd. Versus General Secretary , American Power Conversion (India) Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
11-11-2016 Kanpur Electric Supply Company & Others Versus Ganesh Chand Gupta Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow
27-10-2016 Rubi Mehra Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-10-2016 Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay City VI High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-08-2016 Antonio Sergio Costa @ Tony Costa Versus Rashi Amit Mehra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
04-08-2016 Raj Kumar Mehra & Another Versus Surinder Mohan High Court of Himachal Pradesh
29-07-2016 Rajan Mehra Versus Geetanjali Mehra High Court of Delhi
08-07-2016 M/s Kailash Electric Stores Versus Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-05-2016 Mirzapur Electric Supply Company Ltd. Versus New Line Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
23-05-2016 Yogesh Mehra Versus Amit Aggarwal High Court of Delhi
23-05-2016 Asha Versus Raj Kumar Mehra & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
19-05-2016 M/s Jai Goswami Electric Works Alld. Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
17-05-2016 Talwandi Sabo Power Limited & Another Versus SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana