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



C. Mahendra International Ltd v/s Naren Sheth & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- C MAHENDRA INTERNATIONAL LTD [Active] CIN = U36911MH1994PLC077071

Company & Directors' Information:- L T INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1999PLC097892

Company & Directors' Information:- A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102GJ2008PTC053840

Company & Directors' Information:- T. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL1997PTC091049

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066228

Company & Directors' Information:- NAREN & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51503WB1974PTC029165

Company & Directors' Information:- MAHENDRA LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1943PLC011234

    Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 501 of 2019

    Decided On, 09 May 2019

    At, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.I.S. CHEEMA
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. KANTHI NARAHARI
    By, TECHNICAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Pai Amit, Advocate. For the Respondents: None.



Judgment Text


1. M/s. C. Mahendra International Ltd., Shareholder of Ciemme Jewels Limited has preferred this Appeal against order dated 25th March, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, whereby order of liquidation under Section 33 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) has been passed.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the resolution applicant had submitted a plan for Rs. 6.14 crores, which was not accepted, but the appellant has offered Rs. 6.5 crores. However, we are not inclined to grant relief the application being ineligible in terms of Section 29A. It is also accepted that more than 270 days have passed and, therefore, order of liquidation cannot be interfered with.

3. However, we are of the view that in view of the order of liquidation, the ‘Liquidator’ is now required to act in terms of the decision of this Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency) No. 224 of 2018, Y. Shivram Prasad v. S. Dhanapal & Ors., the relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced below:

“11. During the liquidation stage, ‘Liquidator’ required to take steps to ensure that the company remains a going concern and instead of liquidation and for revival of the ‘corporate debtor’ by taking certain measures.

12. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Appellate Tribunal in S.C. Sekaran v. Amit Gupta & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 495 & 496 of 2018, wherein this Appellate Tribunal having noticed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) and Meghal Homes Pvt. Ltd., observed and held:

“5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 99 of 2018 by its judgment dated 25th January, 2019, observed as follows:

“11. ………What is interesting to note is that the Preamble does not, in any manner, refer to liquidation, which is only availed of as a last resort if there is either no resolution plan or the resolution plans submitted are not up to the mark. Even in liquidation, the liquidator can sell the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern. [See Arcelor Mittal (supra) at paragraph 83, footnote 3].

(Emphasis added)

12. It can thus be seen that the primary focus of the legislation is to ensure revival and continuation of the corporate debtor by protecting the corporate debtor from its own management and from a corporate death by liquidation. The Code is thus a beneficial legislation which puts the corporate debtor back on its feet, not being a mere recovery legislation for creditors. The interests of the corporate debtor have, therefore, been bifurcated and separated from that of its promoters/those who are in management. Thus, the resolution process is not adversarial to the corporate debtor but, in fact, protective of its interests. The moratorium imposed by Section 14 is in the interest of the corporate debtor itself, thereby preserving the assets of the corporate debtor during the resolution process. The timelines within which the resolution process is to take place again protects the corporate debtor’s assets from further dilution, and also protects all its creditors and workers by seeing that the resolution process goes through as fast as possible so that another management can, through its entrepreneurial skills, resuscitate the corporate debtor to achieve all these ends.”

In Arcelormittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. at paragraph 83, footnote 3 is mentioned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that:

“3. Regulation 32 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, states that the liquidator may also sell the corporate debtor as a going concern.”

6. In Meghal Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Niwas Girni K.K. Samiti & Ors., VIII (2007) SLT 235=IV (2007) BC 491 (SC)=(2007) 7 SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and held as follows:

“33. The argument that Section 391 would not apply to a company which has already been ordered to be wound up, cannot be accepted in view of the language of Section 391(1) of the Act, which speaks of a company which is being wound up. If we substitute the definition in Section 390(a) of the Act, this would mean a company liable to be wound up and which is being wound up. It also does not appear to be necessary to restrict the scope of that provision considering the purpose for which it is enacted, namely, the revival of a company including a company that is liable to be wound up or is being wound up and normally, the attempt must be to ensure that rather than dissolving a company it is allowed to revive. Moreover, Section 391(1)(b) gives a right to the liquidator in the case of a company which is being wound up, to propose a compromise or arrangement with creditors and members indicating that the provision would apply even in a case where an order of winding up has been made and a liquidator had been appointed. Equally, it does not appear to be necessary to go elaborately into the question whether in the case of a company in liquidation, only the Official Liquidator could propose a compromise or arrangement with the creditors and members as contemplated by Section 391 of the Act or any of the contributories or creditors also can come forward with such an application.”

7. Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 has since been replaced by Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, which is as follows:

“230. Power to compromise or make arrangements with creditors and members

(1) Where a compromise or arrangement is proposed—

(a) between a company and its creditors or any class of them; or

(b) between a company and its members or any class of them,

the Tribunal may, on the application of the company or of any creditor or member of the company, or in the case of a company which is being wound up, of the liquidator appointed under this Act or under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as the case may be, order a meeting of the creditors or class of creditors, or of the members or class of members, as the case may be, to be called, held and conducted in such manner as the Tribunal directs.

Explanation—For the purposes of this sub-section, arrangement includes a re-organisation of the company’s share capital by the consolidation of shares of different classes or by the division of shares into shares of different classes, or by both of those methods.

(2) The company or any other person, by whom an application is made under Sub-section (1), shall disclose to the by affidavit—

(a) all material facts relating to the company, such as the latest financial position of the company, the latest auditor‘s report on the accounts of the company and the pendency of any investigation or proceedings against the company;

(b) reduction of share capital of the company, if any, included in the compromise or arrangement;

(c) any scheme of corporate debt restructuring consented to by not less than seventy-five per cent of the secured creditors in value, including—

(i) a creditor’s responsibility statement in the prescribed form;

(ii) safeguards for the protection of other secured and unsecured creditors;

(iii) report by the auditor that the fund requirements of the company after the corporate debt restructuring as approved shall conform to the liquidity test based upon the estimates provided to them by the Board;

(iv) where the company proposes to adopt the corporate debt restructuring guidelines specified by the Reserve Bank of India, a statement to that effect; and

(v) a valuation report in respect of the shares and the property and all assets, tangible and intangible, movable and immovable, of the company by a registered valuer.

(3) Where a meeting is proposed to be called in pursuance of an order of the Tribunal under Sub-section (1), a notice of such meeting shall be sent to all the creditors or class of creditors and to all the members or class of members and the debenture-holders of the company, individually at the address registered with the company which shall be accompanied by a statement disclosing the details of the compromise or arrangement, a copy of the valuation report, if any, and explaining their effect on creditors, key managerial personnel, promoters and non-promoter members, and the debenture-holders and the effect of the compromise or arrangement on any material interests of the directors of the company or the debenture trustees, and such other matters as may be prescribed:

Provided that such notice and other documents shall also be placed on the website of the company, if any, and in case of a listed company, these documents shall be sent to the Securities and Exchange Board and stock exchange where the securities of the companies are listed, for placing on their website and shall also be published in newspapers in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided further that where the notice for the meeting is also issued by way of an advertisement, it shall indicate the time within which copies of the compromise or arrangement shall be made available to the concerned persons free of charge from the registered office of the company.

(4) A notice under Sub-section (3) shall provide that the persons to whom the notice is sent may vote in the meeting either them-selves or through proxies or by postal ballot to the adoption of the compromise or arrangement within one month from the date of receipt of such notice:

Provided that any objection to the compromise or arrangement shall be made only by persons holding not less than ten per cent of the shareholding or having outstanding debt amounting to not less than five per cent. of the total outstanding debt as per the latest audited financial statement.

(5) A notice under Sub-section (3) along with all the documents in such form as may be prescribed shall also be sent to the Central Government, the income-tax authorities, the Reserve Bank of India, the Securities and Exchange Board, the Registrar, the respective stock exchanges, the Official Liquidator, the Competition Commission of India established under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002, if necessary, and such other sectoral regulators or authorities which are likely to be affected by the compromise or arrangement and shall require that representations, if any, to be made by them shall be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice, failing which, it shall be presumed that they have no representations to make on the proposals.

(6) Where, at a meeting held in pursuance of Sub-section (1), majority of persons representing three-fourths in value of the creditors, or class of creditors or members or class of members, as the case may be, voting in person or by proxy or by postal ballot, agree to any compromise or arrangement and if such compromise or arrangement is sanctioned by the Tribunal by an order, the same shall be binding on the company, all the creditors, or class of creditors or members or class of members, as the case may be, or, in case of a company being wound up, on the liquidator appointed under this Act or under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the case may be, and the contributories of the company.

(7) An order made by the Tribunal under Sub-section (6) shall provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:

(a) where the compromise or arrangement provides for conversion of preference shares into equity shares, such preference shareholders shall be given an option to either obtain arrears of dividend in cash or accept equity shares equal to the value of the dividend payable;

(b) the protection of any class of creditors;

(c) if the compromise or arrangement results in the variation of the shareholders’ rights, it shall be given effect to under the provisions of Section 48;

(d) if the compromise or arrangement is agreed to by the creditors under Sub-section (6), any proceedings pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 shall abate;

(e) such other matters including exit offer to dissenting shares holders, if any, as are in the opinion of the Tribunal necessary to effectively implement the terms of the compromise or arrangement:

Provided that no compromise or arrangement shall be sanctioned by the Tribunal unless a certificate by the company’s auditor has been filed with the Tribunal to the effect that the accounting treatment, if any, proposed in the scheme of compromise or arrangement is in conformity with the accounting standards prescribed under Section 133.

(8) The order of the Tribunal shall be filed with the Registrar by the company within a period of thirty days of the receipt of the order.

(9) The Tribunal may dispense with calling of a meeting of creditor or class of creditors where such creditors or class of creditors, having at least ninety per cent value, agree and confirm, by way of affidavit, to the scheme of compromise or arrangement.

(10) No compromise or arrangement in respect of any buy-back of securities under this section shall be sanctioned by the Tribunal unless such buy-back is in accordance with the provisions of Section 68.

(11) Any compromise or arrangement may include takeover offer made in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that in case of listed companies, takeover offer shall be as per the regulations framed by the Securities and Exchange Board.

(12) An aggrieved party may make an application to the Tribunal in the event of any grievances with respect to the takeover offer of companies other than listed companies in such manner as may be prescribed and the Tribunal may, on application, pass such order as it may deem fit.

Explanation—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the provisions of Section 66 shall not apply to the reduction of share capital effected in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal under this section.

8. In view of the provision of Section 230 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meghal Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd., we direct the ‘Liquidator’ to proceed in accordance with law. He will verify claims of all the creditors; take into custody and control of all the assets, property, effects and actionable claims of the ‘corporate debtor’, carry on the business of the ‘corporate debtor’ for its beneficial liquidation etc. as prescribed under Section 35 of the I&B Code. The Liquidator will access information under Section 33 and will consolidate the claim under Section 38 and after verification of claim in terms of Section 39 will either admit or reject the claim, as required under Section 40. Before taking steps to sell the assets of the ‘corporate debtor(s)’ (companies herein), the Liquidator will take steps in terms of Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Adjudicating Authority, if so required, will pass appropriate order. Only on failure of revival, the Adjudicating Authority and the Liquidator will first proceed with the sale of company’s assets wholly and thereafter, if not possible to sell the company in part and in accordance with law.”

13. Therefore, it is clear that during the liquidation process, step required to be taken for its revival and continuance of the ‘corporate debtor’ by protecting the ‘corporate debtor’ from its management and from a death by liquidation. Thus, the steps which are required to be taken are as follows:

(i) By compromise or arrangement with the creditors, or class of creditors or members or class of members in terms of Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.

(ii) On failure, the liquidator is required to take step to sell the business of the ‘corporate debtor’ as going concern in its totality along with the employees.

14. The last stage will be death of the ‘corporate debtor’ by liquidation, which should be avoided.

15. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (Promoter) submitted that the provisions under Section 230 may not be completed within 90 days, as observed in S.C. Sekaran v. Amit Gupta & Ors. (supra).

16. It is further submitted that there will be objections by some of the creditors or members who may not allow the Tribunal to pass appropriate order under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.

17. Normally, the total period for liquidation is to be completed preferably within two years. Therefore, in S.C. Sekaran v. Amit Gupta & Ors. (supra), this Appellate Tribunal allowed 90 days’ time to take steps under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. In case, for any reason the liquidation process under Section 230 takes more time, it is open to the Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal) to extend the period if there is a chance of approval of arrangement of the scheme.

18. During proceeding under Section 230, if any, objection is raised, it is open to the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) which has power to pass order under Section 230 to overrule the objections, if the arrangement and scheme is beneficial for revival of the ‘corporate debtor’ (Company). While passing such order, the Adjudicating Authority is to play dual role, one as the Adjudicating Authority in the matter of liquidation and other as a Tribunal for passing order under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

As the liquidation so taken up under the ‘I&B Code’, the arrangement of scheme should be in consonance with the statement and object of the ‘I&B Code’. Meaning thereby, the scheme must ensure maximisation of the assets of the ‘corporate debtor’ and balance the stakeholders such as, the ‘financial creditors’, ‘operational creditors’, ‘secured creditors’ and ‘unsecured creditors’ without any discrimination. Before approval of an arrangement or Scheme, the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) should follow the same principle and should allow the ‘Liquidator’ to constitute a ‘committee of creditors’ for its opinion to find out whether the arrangement of Scheme is viable, feasible and having appropriate financial matrix. It will be open for the Adjudicating Authority as a Tribunal to approve the arrangement or Scheme in spite of some irrelevant objections as may be raised by one or other creditor or member keeping in mind the object of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 19. In view of the observations aforesaid, we hold that the Liquidator is required to act in terms of the aforesaid directions of the Appellate Tribunal and take steps under Section 230 of the Companies Act. If the members or the ‘corporate debtor’ or the ‘creditors’ or a class of creditors like ‘financial creditor’ or ‘operational creditor’ approach the company through the liquidator for compromise or arrangement by making proposal of payment to all the creditor(s), the Liquidator on behalf of the company will move an application under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 before the Adjudicating Authority i.e. National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in terms of the observations as made in above. On failure, as observed above, steps should be taken for outright sale of the ‘corporate debtor’ so as to enable the employees to continue.” 4. The Appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions as passed in the above order. Appeal disposed of.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
29-06-2020 Coromandel International Ltd. (Earlier Known As Coromandel Fertillisers Ltd.) Through its Authorized Representative, Vishakhapatnam & Others Versus Kamrubai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 IRCON International Ltd. Versus M/s. Meumal Athwani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-06-2020 M/s. Angelique International Limited Versus Public Electricity Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
12-06-2020 Aberdeen Asia Pacific Including Japan Equity Fund Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1(1)(1) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-06-2020 Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Sri Vinayaka Caterors & Consultants, Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partners, K. Eshwar Versus The Executive Warden, International Hostels, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-05-2020 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Nilesh Mahendra Kumar Gandhi & Another Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Check of Accounts) & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-05-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-05-2020 Mahendra Kumar Parida Versus State of Odisha High Court of Orissa
05-05-2020 Mahendra Singh Versus Commissioner of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-05-2020 Bhansali Productions Pvt.Ltd. Versus Eros International Medial Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2020 M/s. Inter Ads Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. Versus Busworld International Cooperatieve Vennootschap Met Beperkte Anasprakelijkheid High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. Versus Axiom Cordages Limited (Previously Known as Axion Impex International Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Mahendra Singh Versus Commissioner of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-04-2020 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, Having Registered Office at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory Nixon Varghese Versus Kannur International Airport Limited, Mattannur, Represented by Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 Dr. Rajesh Jhorawat Versus Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd. V/S Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-03-2020 M/s. Meyer Apparel Ltd. Versus M/s. Panchanan International Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
28-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd. & Another Versus Banothu Rangamma & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
27-02-2020 Perfect Synergy Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sagar Infra Rail International Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
24-02-2020 Saurabh Kar & Another Versus Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-02-2020 APS Forex Services Private Limited Versus Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Anna University Campus, Chennai Versus Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Namakkal & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Finance Controller, TN Rajan & Another Versus Banothu Tharya & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
11-02-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus C.R. Sons Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
07-02-2020 Swastik Builders, Satyam Apartments Next to Rowell Continental (Sunny International) & Others Versus Dr. Shobha & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-02-2020 M/s. Texcel International Pvt. Ltd., Sengundram Industrial Area (Near Ford India Ltd.,), Chengalpattu Versus M/s. Chennai Steel Tubes, Rep.by one of its Partner, G. Bhavanishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 Mahendra Singh Thakur Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
30-01-2020 Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Others Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
27-01-2020 Hotel Soorya International, Represented by its Partner, S. Arumugam Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 D. Mahendra Kumar Jain V/S R. Damodaran & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 M/s. IRCON International Limited, (A Government of India Undertaking), Rep. by its Joint General Manager(South), Bangalore Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintending Engineer(H), Villupuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-01-2020 Namita Mahendra Thanai Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-01-2020 International Car and Motors Ltd. Versus Shyam Sundar Sen & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-01-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
14-01-2020 Export Import Bank of India & Another Versus Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
06-01-2020 M/s. Prime Gold International Limited, Represented by its Director Achin Aggarwal & Another Versus The Additional Director General, The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Coimbatore Zonal Unit, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 Phoenix International Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
04-01-2020 HDFC Bank Limited V/S KPG International Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
20-12-2019 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sushama Mahendra Sonawane & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-12-2019 J. John Winfred Versus International Airport Authority of India Rep. By Airport Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 M/s. Saravana International, Rep. by its Proprietor C.R. Devanathan, Panruti Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panruti High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 Moets Catering Services Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Bindra Versus Dr. Ambedkar International Center & Others High Court of Delhi
06-12-2019 M/s. N.V. International Versus State of Assam & Others Supreme Court of India
06-12-2019 Tuli International Through it is Partner, Neeraj Tuli Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Sh. A.K. Longai, Manager, Duly Contituted Attorney & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-11-2019 Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Salem Versus The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 Rakesh Kadri Versus Mahendra Dharwatker Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panaji
13-11-2019 Shaji B. John, Kings International Ltd., Quilon & Others Versus The Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Cochin, Represented by Its Secretary, Dr. G. Santhanakrishnan High Court of Kerala
07-11-2019 SPT International & Finance Ltd. Versus Bank of Baroda & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-10-2019 M/s. Usha International Ltd., Represented by its Chief Operating Officer, Haryana Versus Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2019 Mahendra T. Thakkar Trading as Prakash Trading Co., Pillaiyar Kulam, Inamkarisalkulam P.O. Srivilliputhur Gujarat & Another Versus N. Ranga Rao & Sons Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-10-2019 M/s. EOS GmbH-India Branch, Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Prakasam Anand (Country Manager), Kolathur Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-10-2019 Head Legal, Gmr Hyd International Airport Ltd. Versus Registrar, Airports Economic Regulatory Appellate Tribunal 2 High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-10-2019 K.P.L. International Limited, Represented by it Senior Vice President, R.P. Mundra Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Saidapet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2019 M.L. Kumawat & Another Versus Bharat Bio Tech International Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-09-2019 Chennai Port Trust Versus Chennai International Terminals Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 Ajit Ravi Versus Cochin International Airport Ltd. High Court of Kerala
20-09-2019 International Society for Krishna Consciousness Versus Ishwari Prasad Singh Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-09-2019 Dharam Vir & Others Versus BGS International Public School & Others High Court of Delhi
18-09-2019 The Management of M/s. International Travel House Limited, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2019 Arvind V. Sheth & Another Versus Mahendra Mohanlal Jain High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-08-2019 M/s. Kadimi International Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited High Court of Delhi
28-08-2019 Mahendra Jayantilal Vora & Others Versus Vasant Complex Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-08-2019 Yun Zhang & Others Versus Sealegs International Limited Court of Appeal of New Zealand
27-08-2019 Jugal Kishore Mahendra Biyani Versus The Income Tax Officer High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
27-08-2019 Central Board of Secondary Education, Application Branch, Shiksha Kendra, Delhi, Represented by its Secretary Versus Manager, Bethlehem International, Vazhakulam, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
26-08-2019 Mahendra Jamnadas Kara Versus Mukesh Baburao Waghmare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-08-2019 K.V. Mahendra Boopathi Versus The High Court represented by The Registrar General High Court Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2019 International Flavours & Fragrances India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Office of the Advocate General, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
09-08-2019 Glencore International AG Versus Indian Potash Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
07-08-2019 Sphere International, a proprietorship concern through its proprietor Rakesh Jalan Versus Ecopack India Paper Cup Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-08-2019 San International Business School, Rep.by its Chairman, T. Jayalakshmi Versus The Director, Centre for Affiliation of Institutions, Anna University, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2019 K. Mahendran, Trincomalee Versus Deutche Welle Radio and TV International, Colombo Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
30-07-2019 Mahin @ Mahendra Natwarlal Patel Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
30-07-2019 M/s. Kuldip Singh Sethi & Gagan Goyal Versus Ecole Globale International Girls School High Court of Uttarakhand
29-07-2019 Bently Nevada LLC Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) (2), International Taxation & Another High Court of Delhi
26-07-2019 Anand Ballabh Pathak Versus Mahendra Singh Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dehradun
23-07-2019 KAS International, Represented by its Proprietor, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Purasawalkam Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-07-2019 M/s. Saravana International, Rep. by its Proprietor, C.R. Devanathan, Panruti Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panruti High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2019 Anand Institute of International Studies, Through Shrimati Arun Pal Anand(Prop/Director), Madhya Pradesh Versus Sani Jaggi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-06-2019 The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Public Works Department, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. GMP International GMBH of Hardenberg Strassee 4-5, Rep.by its Authorised Singatory Col.C. Jaisankar (Retd.) High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-06-2019 Mahendra Bhalchandra Shah & Others Versus Municipal Corporation of Grater Bombay & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-06-2019 R. Mallika & Another Versus Expeditors International India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Supervisor in Accounts department Bharanidharan High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-06-2019 Mahendra Sutradhar & Others Versus The Union of India & Others High Court of Gauhati
30-05-2019 Atakas Ticaret Ve Nakliyat As Versus Glencore International Ag Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
29-05-2019 Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Versus LMJ International Limited & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
23-05-2019 Mahendra Versus Mamta @ Guddi High Court of Rajasthan
16-05-2019 International Centre For Alternative Dispute Resolution Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
15-05-2019 R (on the application of Privacy International) Versus Investigatory Powers Tribunal & Others United Kingdom Supreme Court
14-05-2019 RUBFILA International Limited NIDA Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
10-05-2019 International Cycle Gears Versus The Controller of Patents & Designs & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-05-2019 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Mahendra Baid & Others High Court of Rajasthan
03-05-2019 M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. & Another Versus Official Liquidator of M/s Minar International Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay