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



Babu @ Farook Batcha @ Auto Babu v/s State by Inspector of Police, Coimbatore


Company & Directors' Information:- AUTO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65991TN1984PTC010923

    Crl.A. No. 85 of 2011

    Decided On, 17 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. PONGIAPPAN

    For the Appellant: R. Rajarathinam, Advocate. For the Respondent: G. Raman, Government Advocate [Criminal Side].



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.II], Coimbatore in S.C.No.100 of 2010 dated 01.02.2011.

1. The present appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.II], Coimbatore in S.C.No.10 of 2010 dated 01.02.2011.

2. The appellant / accused herein is the sole accused in the above said case. After concluding the trial, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.II], Coimbatore, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- [out of which Rs.4,000/- has to be paid to P.W.1 as compensation], in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Now, against the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant praying to set aside the same.

3. The gist of the prosecution case, is as follows:

3.1. P.W.1 [Jalil Rahman] was residing in Karumbukadai, Coimbatore. P.W.2 [Sagar Banu] is his wife and P.W.3 [Mujibun Rahman] is his brother. The appellant herein is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. Before the occurrence, the sister [Mujira Banu] of P.W.1 fell in love with the appellant and got married, due to their wedlock, they were blessed with three male children. Before some time from the date of occurrence, the appellant frequently consumed the liquor and harassed his wife [Mujira Banu], due to which, she returned to the house of P.W.1 and preferred a compliant before the All Women Police Station, Puliyankulam. During enquiry, the appellant asked apology and took his wife to his house.

3.2. On the day of occurrence i.e., on 10.12.2009 at about 9.00p.m., the appellant called the P.W.2 through mobile phone and abused her by using filthy language and hence, P.W.2 switched off the mobile phone. In the same day at about 10.30p.m., after closing his shop, P.W.1 came to his residence and after finishing the dinner, he went to bedroom. At about 11.30p.m., after hearing the noise near to the gate he opened the door, at that time, the appellant and his son jumped into the compound wall and asked the P.W.1 about the allegations mentioned in the complaint given in the Police Station. Further, the appellant abused P.W.1 by using filthy language and immediately, he took the small knife and attacked P.W.1 on the abdomen. After seeing the occurrence, P.W.2 came to the scene of occurrence but the appellant threatened P.W.2 by showing the knife, due to which, P.W.2 shouted like anything. On hearing the noise, the neighbours came to the scene of occurrence and thereafter, the appellant ran away from the spot with the knife.

3.3. Subsequently, P.W.1 was admitted in the Abirami Hospital for getting treatment. In the said Hospital, he was treated by Dr.Venkatesan, for which, he issued wound certificate under Ex.P.5. After admitting the P.W.1 in the Hospital as an inpatient, the said Doctor intimated the incident to the police officers under the MLC Intimation [Ex.P.4]. Further another one Dr.R.Vivekanandan [P.W.4] found the following injury and gave opinion as follows:

1. A deep stab injury over the Mid-Abdomen about 4 cm

The injury sustained by P.W.1 is grievous in nature.

3.4. After getting the intimation from the Abirami Hospital, Coimbatore, on 11.12.2009 at about 1.30a.m., P.W.5 [R.Arumugam], the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuniamuthur Police Station, went to the Hospital and recorded the statement given by P.W.1 under Ex.P.1. Thereafter, the case has been registered in Crime No.263 of 2009 for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Ex.P.6 is the First Information Report. After registration of the case, he handed over the case records to the Inspector of Police for investigation.

3.5. After receiving the case records from P.W.5 [R.Arumugam], P.W.7 [J.Kumaresan], the then Inspector of Police, B-6 Police Station, rushed to the Hospital, in which P.W.1 was admitted and recorded the statement and he examined P.W.2 and P.W.3. On the next day at about 6.00a.m., he went to the scene of occurrence and in the presence of P.W.6 [Mahamutha] and one Amir Basha, he prepared an Observation Mahazar under Ex.P.7. Further, he draw rough sketch under Ex.P.8.

3.6. In continuation of the investigation, on the same day, at about 7.00a.m., he arrested the accused in the presence of same witnesses, who attested in the Observation Mahazar and recorded the confession statement given by the accused. Before that, P.W.7 recovered the Auto bearing Registration No.TN-38-C-8659, which was driven by the appellant under the cover of Mahazar. Based on the confession given by the appellant, P.W.7 recovered the knife, which was used for the commission of offence from the backside of the auto. The admitted portion of the confession statement was exhibited as P.2. Thereafter, P.W.7 recovered the dresses owned by the P.W.1 under the cover of Mahazar and sent it to the same for chemical examination. After completing the chemical examination, the report was received by him under Ex.P.10. Finally, P.W.7 completed the investigation and laid a Charge Sheet for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.

3.7. After receiving the Charge Sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, has taken the case on file as P.R.C.No.18 of 2010 and thereafter, the same has been committed to the Court of Sessions, Coimbatore.

3.8. In the Court of Session, a case number was assigned as S.C.No.100 of 2010 and made over the same to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.II], Coimbatore, for disposal. In the said Court, after giving sufficient time, the appellant was questioned with regard to the allegation levelled against him, but he pleaded not guilty. So, the charges have been framed for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Subsequent to the framing of charges, 7 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution as P.W.1 to P.W.7, besides 10 documents were exhibited as P.1 to P.10.

3.9. After concluding the trial, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.II], Coimbatore, came to the conclusion that the appellant is found guilty for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and awarded the punishment as stated above. Now, challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court.

4. Today, when the appeal is taken up for hearing, I heard the arguments of Mr.R.Rajarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.G.Raman, learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] appearing for the State and perused the material documents available on record.

5. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the alleged offence had happened in the night hours at about 11.30p.m. so, it is impossible for P.W.1 to P.W.3 to see the appellant and hence, the prosecution had failed to prove the case with sufficient evidence. Further, he submit that on going through the rough sketch [Ex.P.8] prepared by P.W.7, nothing had mentioned with regard to the lamp-post and the light available in the scene of occurrence. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

6. On considering the said arguments, as per the rough sketch [Ex.P.8] and according to the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the alleged occurrence had happened between the compound wall and to the entrance of the house. In this regard, P.W.1. in his evidence had categorically mentioned that during the time of occurrence a light is available in the scene of occurrence. Further, it is necessary to borne in mind that the appellant and P.W.1 being the close relatives, it is very easy to identify the appellant based on the voice itself. So, the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant with regard to the light is no way diluted the case of the prosecution.

7. The next contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that as per the evidence given by P.W.4 [Dr.Vivekanandan], P.W.1 had not sustained any grievous injury. But without knowing the said aspect, the trial Judge, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is nothing but erroneous one.

8. On considering the said aspect with the evidence given by P.W.5, it appears that actually one Dr.Venkatesan was treated P.W.1 at the time of occurrence but instead of the said Doctor, another one Dr.R.Vivekanandan [P.W.4] was examined for proving the nature of injury sustained by P.W.1. In the chief-examination, he clearly stated that the edge of the knife is went upto the liver. In the cross-examination, he admitted that when at the time of doing surgery through the laparoscope, the liver sustained cut injury. Further, he stated that he has not seen the knife used by the appellant. So, according to the cross-examination of P.W.4, the liver was damaged only at the time of giving treatment to the P.W.1. But in the wound certificate [Ex.P.5], which was mentioned as a deep stab injury over the mid-abdomen about 4cm. Further, it was certified that the said injury is grievous in nature. Accordingly, in the wound certificate, the Doctor [P.W.4] has not noted about the cut injury occurred to the liver. The Doctor, who issued the wound certificate certifies that the injury sustained in the abdomen is grievous in nature. Accordingly, this Court is also agreeing with the contents of the wound certificate [Ex.P.5] and came to the conclusion that due to the time of occurrence, the appellant caused grievous injury to P.W.1.

9. Moreover, as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer [P.W.7], the knife recovered from the appellant and the clothes received from the injured were all sent to the chemical examination. On going through the report [Ex.P.10] of the chemical examination, it was mentioned that the knife, shirt, bedsheet, lungi and a torn towel are all having the blood. Even though the group of the blood is not disclosed in the report, if really the appellant is not involved in this offence there is no necessity for him to produce the blood stained knife before the police officers. So, the evidences given by P.W.1 and P.W.2 are corroborated with the contents of the report [Ex.P.10]. Accordingly, the second submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant also is not a ground for allowing the appeal.

10. The third submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that in the Mahazar prepared for the recovery of knife, there is no averment with regard to the blood stains found on the knife. In the circumstances, sending the blood stained knife for chemical examination is highly doubtful. Accordingly, the report submitted by the chemical examiner is no way helpful to accept the case of the prosecution.

11. It is true in the Mahazar prepared by the Investigating Officer [P.W.7]

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

, there is no specific averment with regard to the blood stains found on the knife. In the said circumstances, even assuming the chemical report [Ex.P.10] is a false one, the evidences given by P.W.1 and P.W.2 alone are sufficient to hold the case of the prosecution is a true one. Accordingly, the said contention is also decided against the appellant. 12. Moreover, in this case during the time of occurrence in odd hours after taking the knife, the appellant went to the house of P.W.1. Those circumstances shows that the appellant is having the intention to murder the P.W.1. In this aspect also without any hesitation I hold that the appellant is found guilty for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. 13. In the light of the above discussion, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the sentence awarded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.II], Coimbatore in S.C.No.10 of 2010 dated 01.02.2011 is confirmed. The respondent is directed to secure the appellant for the purpose of sentencing him to undergo the remaining period of conviction. It is also directed that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off, as required under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

24-06-2020 Skoda Auto Volkswagen India P Ltd. Versus Meghana Corporates P Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep. By its Territory Manager (Retail), K. Manoj Versus N.K. Sundaram, Proprietor, M/s. Salila Auto Fuels Bharat Petroleum Dealers, Mahe High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 Sipani Energy Ltd., Total Gas Auto Versus Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike High Court of Karnataka
18-11-2019 M/s. Renowned Auto Products Manufacturers Limited., now known as M/s. Tenneco Automotive India Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Director, J. Ambrose, Hosur & Another Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2019 M/s. Renowned Auto Products Manufacturers Ltd., Now known as M/s.Tenneco Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Director, Ambrose, Tamil Nadu Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2019 R.G. Steels V/S Berrys Auto Ancillaries (P) Ltd. National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
09-09-2019 M/s. JBM Auto System Private Limited, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Rep by its Authorized Signatory – Mouroukayan.V Versus Regional PF Commissioner – II (C & R), Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office : Tambaram High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-09-2019 Manjit Commercial LLP Versus SPM Auto Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
09-08-2019 M/s. Dulichand Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Sree Howrah Stores, partnership firm, represented by its partner, Ashok Kumar & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
17-07-2019 M/s. Aditya Auto Products & Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Head-HR Ramesh Pai Versus M/s. Aditya Auto Products (NTTF), Rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
15-07-2019 M/s. New Rathna Auto, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Tiruvannamalai Versus State Tax Officer, Vandavasi Assessment Circle, Tiruvannamalai High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-07-2019 M/s. New Rathna Auto, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai Versus State Tax Officer, Vandavasi Assessment Circle, Tiruvannamalai High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-06-2019 The Manager, Amma's Auto Tech (Tata Motors), Authorized Service Centre, V.V. Nagar, Cheruvathur Versus Dineshan Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
29-05-2019 Popular Auto Spares Kallarkutty, Rep.by the Managing Partner, Joy.P.U, Pallickal House, Adimali Versus The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Adimali.P.O. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
27-03-2019 Bajaj Auto Limited Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
18-03-2019 M/s. R.D.S. Project Ltd. Versus Scoda Auto India Private Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-03-2019 General Manager, M/s. Jaikrishnaa Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore Versus S. Thangamani & Another Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
13-02-2019 Corporation Bank Vs Amtek Auto Ltd & Others with The Committee of Creditors of Amtek Auto Limited, through Corporation Bank Vs 1. Liberty House Group Pte Ltd & 2. Mr. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian wih Liberty House Group Pte Ltd Vs 1. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian & 2. Committee of Creditors of Amtek Auto Limited National Company Law Tribunal Chandigarh
25-01-2019 Shrusthi Agro & Cold Storage, Kanbargi Industrial Area, Auto Nagar, Belagavi Represented by Its Partners Versus State of Karnataka & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
24-01-2019 Prem Arora Versus Partap Auto India Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-12-2018 Aditya Auto Products & Engineering India Pvt Ltd. Versus Aditya Auto Products (Nttf) Employees Union High Court of Karnataka
04-12-2018 M/s. Indian Auto Gas Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, S.M. Antony Thomas Versus K. Radha Lakshmi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-11-2018 M/s Jamna Auto Industries Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Ujjain Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
23-10-2018 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Susee Auto Sales & Service Pvt. Ltd., Madurai Versus V. Dukkaiammal & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-09-2018 Jiviben Purushottambhai Dave Versus Mehta Cycle & Auto Stores High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
31-08-2018 Rajeev Raj Kumar (Company Secretary), M/s. Amtek Auto Ltd. & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
14-08-2018 M/s. Modular Auto Limited, Ambattur, Chennai Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai ? North Commissioner ate, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2018 Tejashree Auto Authorised Dealer Ashok Layland, Nagpur Versus Shashikant Madhavrao Mangale & Others Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
31-07-2018 Khimji Auto Riders Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Cuttack
26-07-2018 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Maharashtra Auto Parts Jalgaon Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
16-07-2018 M/s. Citizen Auto Service, Represented by Partner N. Sirajudeen Versus M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Represented by its General Manager & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 M/s. Continental Auto Services Versus The Secretary-Labour & Another High Court of Delhi
09-07-2018 Vega Auto Accessories Pvt Ltd. Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
15-06-2018 Standard Auto Agencies V/S CGST & CE, Bhopal Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
14-06-2018 N. Dorai Kannan Versus The General Manager Kun Hyundai (Kun Auto Co.Pvt. Ltd.) Service & Another Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
13-06-2018 Roots Auto Products Pvt. Ltd V/S CCE, Coimbatore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
23-05-2018 HAR Auto Pvt. Ltd., Har Avenue, Kannothumchal, Kannur, Represented by the Managing Director Versus P. Mukundan Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
07-05-2018 Auto Links Enterprises (I) Pvt. Ltd V/S CCE, Delhi-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
27-04-2018 Manja @ Auto Manja & Others Versus State by Konanur Police, Represented by SPP, High Court of Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
25-04-2018 OK Play Auto Pvt. Ltd. Versus Indian Commerce & Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
05-04-2018 Dev Narayan Versus The MGMT. of M/s. Auto Precision High Court of Delhi
21-03-2018 Dongala Srinivas Versus The Managing Director M/s. Laxmi Ganapathi Auto Mobiles Pvt Ltd. & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
14-03-2018 Krishan Kumar Sethi Proprieter of Sethi Auto Centre Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-XX & Another High Court of Delhi
08-03-2018 Ramya Auto Agency, Rep. by its Proprietor, P. Muthusamy Versus TVS Motor Company Ltd. Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-02-2018 Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-02-2018 Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. & Others Versus Sudhakar Debnath & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-02-2018 Auto Cars Versus Trimurti Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
31-01-2018 Bajaj Auto Limited Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-01-2018 Sayaji & Others Versus Bajaj Auto Limited & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-01-2018 Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Shendra, Aurangabad, Represented by its Company Secretary & Head of GRC Versus M/s. St. Antony's Trading Company, A Partnership Firm Represented By Its Managing Partner Mehar Reynolds & Others High Court of Kerala
17-01-2018 In the matter of: Shri Sandeep P. Agarwal Versus Skoda Auto India Pvt.Ltd. & Another Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
08-01-2018 Messrs Auto Hirers & Another Versus Commerce Centre Co-operative Society Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-01-2018 Shiva Auto Mobiles (Auto Division) Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-12-2017 M/s. Pawan Auto Store Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-12-2017 Ajay Ramchandra Pimparkar & Others Versus M/s. Saraswati Auto Components, Through its Managing Director, Dilip N. Dharurkar In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-12-2017 Bajaj Auto Limited, Pune Versus TVS Motor Company Limited, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-12-2017 Toyoto Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha Versus M/s. Prius Auto Industries Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
08-12-2017 Puduvai Pradesh Auto, Ottunargal Matrum Urimaiyalargal Sangam, Rep. by its General Secretary, G. Sinouvassane Versus The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Rep. by its Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-12-2017 K.M. Gopal Versus Mookambigai Auto Financiers, Gudiyattm, Rep. by its Partner, Gudiyattam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-12-2017 Sunbeam Auto Private Limited Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Delhi
21-11-2017 Gurucharan Singh Versus Brar Auto Wheels Private Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-11-2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Auto Mobile Corporation of Goa Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
03-10-2017 Vinayakrao Shankarrao Borse Versus M/s. Wasan Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-09-2017 Yutaka Auto Parts India Pvt. Ltd V/S CCE & S.T., Alwar Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
17-08-2017 M/s. Napa Auto Forge Pvt. Ltd. Versus Appellate Authority High Court of Punjab and Haryana
02-08-2017 Berry's Auto Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of C. Ex., Lucknow Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
31-07-2017 Jamna Auto Industries Ltd V/S CCE, Indore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
20-07-2017 M/s. Ajmer Auto Agency Private Limited Versus Nirmala Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-07-2017 Ram Singh Versus Kunal TVS Auto Center & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-06-2017 Wichitra Auto Ltd. and Others V/S CCE, Chennai-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
29-06-2017 Aztec Auto Ltd. and Others V/S CCE, Madurai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
09-06-2017 S. Rajendran Versus M/s. Kannapiran Auto Finance, Represented by its Working Partner R. Kathiresan Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-06-2017 N. Puttaswamy @ Auto Puttaswamy & Another Versus State of Karnataka by Saraswathipuram Police, Represented by Learned State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
26-05-2017 Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
17-04-2017 Workmen of Dynamatic Technologies (JKM Auto) Limited, Rep. by its General Secretary D. Christopher, Chennai Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Department of Labour & Employment, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-04-2017 Vimko Auto Industries Ltd V/S Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T., Ludhiana Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
05-04-2017 C.M Auto Sales (P) Ltd. Versus Nav Kiran Dhaliwal daughter of Baldev Singh Dhaliwal & Others Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
29-03-2017 Kolhapur Auto Works V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
03-03-2017 Indian Commerce & Industries Co. Private Limited, Chennai rep. by its Director C. Ravindran Versus OK Play Auto Private Limited, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2017 Auto Risk Management Services P Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Delhi-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
09-02-2017 M.H. Basheer Versus Wheels Auto Finance, Represented by V.A. Sabu & Another High Court of Kerala
09-02-2017 Perfect Auto Spares and Others V/S CC-N. Delhi-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
06-02-2017 Vega Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E. & S.T. Meerut-II and Others. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
24-01-2017 Steer Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Skoda Auto a.s. Vaclava Klementa & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
19-01-2017 Esskay Auto Finance Pvt Ltd Versus State (Excise Department) & Others High Court of Rajasthan
06-01-2017 Bajaj auto Finance Ltd. & Others Versus Kalipada Saha West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
04-01-2017 AR.A.S.Auto Private Limited, Madurai Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPF Organization, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-01-2017 Auto Hangar India Pvt. Ltd. Rajan House, Mumbai Versus Harsh Lambah & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-12-2016 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus M/s. Venus Auto Batteries & Another Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
22-12-2016 Alok Goyal Versus Hindustan Auto House Private Limited & Another Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur
19-12-2016 M/s. Poomkudy Auto Service (p) Ltd. Versus Parshanth Raghuvaran & Another High Court of Kerala
21-11-2016 M/s. Auto Creaters Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-09-2016 Atul Auto Limited Versus Devidas & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-09-2016 Daon Auto Parts (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2016 M/s. Pravi Auto Swing Pvt Ltd. Versus Ashok Kisan More & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-09-2016 M/s.Shana Auto Laser Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-III Spencers Plaza Anna Salai, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2016 M/s Orange Auto Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Versus H. Suresh Arun & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
18-08-2016 M/s Trimurti Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Auto Cars & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-08-2016 Budhia Auto Associate Pvt. Ltd. Versus None High Court of Chhattisgarh
29-07-2016 M/s. Auto Craft Engineers Versus Akshar Automobiles Agencies Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay