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



Carborundum Universal Ltd. v/s Joint Commissioner of Income-tax


Company & Directors' Information:- CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L29224TN1954PLC000318

Company & Directors' Information:- UNIVERSAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2000PLC103817

Company & Directors' Information:- UNIVERSAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202PB1984PTC001388

Company & Directors' Information:- UNIVERSAL PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909PB1948PTC001338

    Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 2386 & 2387 of 2006

    Decided On, 12 January 2015

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. KARUPPIAH

    For the Appellant: R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate. For the Respondent: T. Ravikumar, Standing Counsel.



Judgment Text

R. Sudhakar, J.

1. The above tax case (appeals) filed by the assessee as against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were admitted by this court on the following substantial questions of law :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the losses incurred by the industrial undertaking claiming deduction under section 80-I, which has been already set off against the profits of the industrial undertaking, should be notionally carried forward and set off against the profit generated by the industrial undertaking during the relevant assessment year for determining the deduction under section 80-I ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the issue of restricting the relief under section 80-I was debatable and, hence, cannot be carried out in an order of rectification under section 154 particularly when a concurrent Bench of the same Tribunal has held the issue in favour of the assessee ?

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not appreciating that the rectification under section 154 is permissible only where the mistake is apparent on the face of the record but not when the issue requires deliberation on legal issues and extensive investigation of facts from the records of earlier years ?"

2. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of abrasives, refractories, grinding wheels, etc. For the assessment year 1992-93, the Assessing Officer allowed deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 154 of the Income-tax Act was issued calling upon the assessee to show cause why losses incurred by the assessee up to the assessment year 1991-92 should not be set off against the profits that have been derived from the industrial undertaking during the assessment year 1992-93. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee filed a reply stating that the deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act should be construed as profits earned during any year and it should not be treated as profits after setting off of the carried forward losses. However, the Assessing Officer did not agree with the said reply of the assessee and passed the rectification order by notionally carried forward the losses of the earlier years and setting off the same against the profit available during the assessment year 1992-93. Since the deduction under section 80-I was negatived for the assessment year 1992-93, the Assessing Officer withdrew the deduction for the assessment year 1993-94 also.

3. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who dismissed the appeals, thereby confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

4. As against the said orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee filed further appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal contending that the notional carry forward losses should not be set off in computing the deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act. Before the Tribunal, the assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. TTK Pharma Ltd. [I.T. Appeal No. 2698 of 1994].

5. The Tribunal, without following its own decision, dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee holding that the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 80-I has not been considered properly in the said decision and, hence, the said decision would not apply to the case of the assessee.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the present tax case (appeals) have been filed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee submits that the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of TTK Pharma Ltd. (supra) has been taken on appeal by the Revenue before this court and this court, after considering the entire gamut of the case, decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He further submitted that the said decision of this court has not been challenged by the Revenue and, hence, had become final. He also submitted that the issue involved in the present case is identical to the issue decided by this court dated December 23, 2009, made in T.C. (A.) No. 298 of 2004 in the case of TTK Pharma Ltd. (supra).

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this court.

9. Whether the issue raised in these appeals is identical to the issue in the abovesaid decision of this court in the case of TTK Pharma Ltd. (supra) needs to be seen.

10. The question raised in the abovesaid decision of this court was whether for the purpose of allowing deduction under section 80-I, the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, etc., of the new industrial undertaking need not be taken into consideration, once they have been set off against other sources of income, especially in view of the clear provisions of sub-section (6) of section 80-I, the application of which is mandatory.

11. The Division Bench of this court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer, Income-tax [2008] 299 ITR 444/168 Taxman 224 came to the conclusion that once the depreciation allowance and the development rebate for the past assessment years were fully set off against the total income of the assessee for those assessment years, the question of carry forward the same does not arise, more so for the purpose of determining the deduction under section 80-I. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the abovesaid decision of this court reads as follows :

"Again, in the case of Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (Income-tax) reported in [2008] 299 ITR 444 (SC), while rejecting the contention of a similar nature raised by the Revenue before it, the hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under (page 454) :

'The contention that under section 80-I(6) the profits derived from one industrial undertaking cannot be set off against loss suffered from another and the profit is required to be computed as if profit making industrial undertaking was the only source of income, has no merit. Section 80-I(1) lays down that where the gross total income of the assessee includes any profits derived from the priority undertaking/unit/division, then in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits of an amount equal to 20 per cent. has to be made. Section 80-I(1) lays down the broad parameters indicating circumstances under which an assessee would be entitled to claim deduction. On the other hand, section 80-I(6) deals with determination of the quantum of deduction. Section 80-I(6) lays down the manner in which the quantum of deduction has to be worked out. After such computation of the quantum of deduction, one has to go back to section 80-I(1) which categorically states that where the gross total income includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking to which section 80-I applies then there shall be a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to 20 per cent. The words 'includes any profits' used by the Legislature in section 80-I(1) are very important which indicate that the gross total income of an assessee shall include profits from a priority undertaking. While computing the quantum of deduction under section 80-I(6), the Assessing Officer, no doubt, has to treat the profits derived from an industrial undertaking as the only source of income in order to arrive at the deductions under Chapter VI-A. However, this court finds that the non obstante clause appearing in section 80-I(6) of the Act, is applicable only to the quantum of deduction, whereas, the gross total income under section 80B(5) which is also referred to in section 80-I(1) is required to be computed in the manner provided under the Act which presupposes that the gross total income shall be arrived at after adjusting the losses of the other division against the profits derived from an industrial undertaking. If the interpretation as suggested by the appellant is accepted it would almost render the provisions of section 80A(2) of the Act nugatory and, therefore, the interpretation canvassed on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. It is true that under section 80-I(6) for the purpose of calculating the deduction, the loss sustained in one of the units, cannot be taken into account because sub-section (6) contemplates that only the profits shall be taken into account as if it was the only source of income. However, section 80A(2) and section 80B(5) are declaratory in nature. They apply to all the sections falling in Chapter VI-A. They impose a ceiling on the total amount of deduction and, therefore, the non obstante clause in section 80-I(6) cannot restrict the operation of sections 80A(2) and 80B(5) which operate in different spheres. As observed earlier, section 80-I(6) deals with actual computation of deduction whereas section 80-I(1) deals with the treatment to be given to such deductions in order to arrive at the total income of the assessee and, therefore, while interpreting section 80-I(1), which also refers to gross total income one has to read the expression 'gross total income' as defined in section 80B(5).' (Emphasis supplied).

The cumulative consideration of the principles set out in the above referre

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d to the decisions and the other factors involved in this case, wherein admittedly the entire depreciation allowance and development rebate for the past assessment years were fully set off against the total income of the assessee for those assessment years and no further depreciation allowance or development rebate remain unabsorbed and nothing could be deducted in respect of the set off while determining the deduction under section 80-I of the Act." 12. A reading of the abovesaid decision of this court reveals that the issue raised in the present appeals is identical to the issue decided by this court. It is relevant to note that the Revenue has not challenged the decision of this court and, hence, the said decision has become final. 13. Since the issue raised in these appeals has been decided by this court and we see no reason to differ with the view taken by this court, following the decision of this court dated December 23, 2009, made in T. C. (A.) No. 298 of 2004, the above tax case (appeals) are allowed. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

06-03-2020 Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Versus M/s Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
26-02-2020 M/s. Universal Shoe Company, Rep. by its Partner V. Arshad Ahmed, Ambur & Others Versus M/s. Canara Bank, Represented by its Authorised Officer, Ambur Branch, Vellore High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Ravi Bansal Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
29-01-2020 Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Dr. Anup Bhargava & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-01-2020 Branch Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Didwaniya Exim Private Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-12-2019 M/s. Universal Cables Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jabalpur Supreme Court of India
09-12-2019 M/s. Sujana Universal Industries Limited Versus State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-11-2019 Raj Vardhan & Another Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-10-2019 A.R. Veeriah & Others Versus The Management of Corborandum Universal Limited, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-10-2019 Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Versus J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
23-10-2019 M/s. Universal Projects Prop., Sourav Bhattacharyya Versus Prasanta Kumar Basak West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
17-10-2019 M/s Universal Insulator And Ceramics Ltd Versus Official Liquidator High Court High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-10-2019 Mirza Afsal Beg Versus I.B.D. Universal Pvt. Ltd. Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
09-10-2019 Jitender Pal Verma Versus M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-09-2019 M/s. Universal Consortium of Engineers (P) Ltd. & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-09-2019 Tapas Gangopadhyay Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-09-2019 Vishal Singh & Another Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-08-2019 Somnath Chatterjee Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-08-2019 The Management, Carborandum Universal Ltd., Industrial Ceramics Division, Hosur Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-08-2019 M/s. Universal Infrastructure & Another Versus Binay Pal Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-08-2019 Kumarpal N. Shah and Others V/S Universal Mechanical Works Pvt. Ltd. and Others. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-06-2019 Shaik babu Versus The Manager Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai & Another High Court of Karnataka
04-06-2019 The Management of Universal Trading Company, Chennai Versus C. Anbazhagan, Rep. by G. Nandakumar, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2019 Riverview Jute Products Pvt. Ltd.(SSI Unit) Versus Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-04-2019 The Employees State Insurance Corporation Versus M/s. Universal Medikit Pvt. Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-04-2019 Bama Pada Dutta Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-04-2019 Amit Poddar Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-02-2019 Universal Consortium of Engineers (P) Ltd. & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-02-2019 Universal Polysack India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Rajasthan
13-02-2019 Vineet Kumar & Others Versus M/s. DLF Universal Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2019 Vineet Kumar & Another Versus Dlf Universal Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2019 Vineet Kumar & Another Versus Dlf Universal Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-02-2019 Nirrbhey Lall & Another Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
04-02-2019 Universal Logistics V/S Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. and Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-02-2019 M/s. Universal Logistics, Rep. by its Managing Partner, D. Arjun Raj Versus Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-01-2019 Wendt (India) Ltd Versus Carborundum Universal Ltd & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
28-11-2018 Sanjib Saha & Another Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-10-2018 Deepak Basu Roy & Another Versus M/s. Universal Projects & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-10-2018 M/s. Pearl Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Universal Land & Finance Co. High Court of Delhi
28-09-2018 Kaushik Guha Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-09-2018 Shubhojit Nag Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Private Limited & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-07-2018 Universal Traders V/S CCE, Chandigarh Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
16-07-2018 Dr. Anup Bhargava & Another Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
10-07-2018 Universal Infrastructures Versus Mohan Lal Barpa National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-06-2018 Panoramic Universal Ltd. Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-05-2018 Prasanta Poddar Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-05-2018 Debashis Modak & Another Versus Director, Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-05-2018 Shri Krishna Versus Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-04-2018 Universal Engineers & Traders V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
11-04-2018 Govindaraju & Others Versus M/s. Universal Sampo, General Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Officer in Charge & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-04-2018 M/s. Universal Cables Ltd. Versus M/s. Laxmi Properties Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-03-2018 Aparesh Nandi & Another Versus Bengal (Unitech) Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
19-03-2018 DLF Universal Ltd. Versus Tarun Aggarwal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-02-2018 M/s. Universal Cylinders Limited Versus The Commercial Taxes Officer Supreme Court of India
20-02-2018 Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd. Versus M/s. Raja Rajeshwari Minerals Pvt.Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director, CH. Sunitha, Hayathnagar, Rangareddy District Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
08-02-2018 Universal Electronics Rep. by tis Offic Incharge Mohd Iqbal Khan Versus Nusrat Jaleel Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
10-01-2018 The Secretary, Kerala State Coastal Management Authority Versus DLF Universal Limited (Formerly known as Adelie Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.) & Others Supreme Court of India
04-01-2018 Chandra Sekhar Singh Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
19-12-2017 Universal Polychem India Pvt. Ltd. and Others V/S CCE, Delhi - I Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
06-12-2017 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai Versus Tvl. Carborandum Universal Ltd, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-11-2017 Sanjoy Dey & Another Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-11-2017 Marami Mahanta Versus Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd High Court of Gauhati
16-10-2017 Commissioner of Customs (Import) V/S Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
13-09-2017 Master Pavan Mundaware Through Guardian Jayashree Vijay Mundaware Versus The Principal/Head Mistress of Ashoka Universal School Chandsi/Wadala & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-09-2017 M/s. Sunmart Logistics Solutions Rep.by its Partner C. Sunilkumar, Tiruppur Versus M/s. Universal Overseas Rep.by its Managing Partner V. Surendran & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2017 M/s. Universal Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd., Versus Commissioner, Trade Tax, Lucknow & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
22-08-2017 Universal Biofuels Pvt. Ltd V/S CCE, C & ST, Visakhapatnam-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
29-06-2017 Universal Petrochemicals Ltd V/S Commr. of Cus. (Import), Mumbai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
28-06-2017 Partha Protim Chatterjee Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-06-2017 Synergy Universal Private Limited, Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore Versus Commissioner for Transport in Karnataka, Shanthinagar, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
12-06-2017 Raheja Universal (P.) Ltd V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
12-06-2017 Raheja Universal Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
24-03-2017 Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Versus Roop Lal Dangi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-03-2017 Universal Medicap Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs (Appeals) - Vadodara-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
03-03-2017 The Management, Carborandum Universal, Vellore District Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2017 M/s. Welspring Universal V/S CCE, Delhi - II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
25-01-2017 Manoj Kumar Versus DLF Universal Ltd. & Another Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
09-01-2017 Vikash Arora Versus M/s. Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Private Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-12-2016 DLF Universal Limited, (Formerly Known As Adelie Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd), Represented by its authorised signatory Mr. Sayed Ebrahim Versus A.V. Antony, Kanayannur Taluk & Others High Court of Kerala
24-11-2016 Daljit Singh & Another Versus M/s. Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-11-2016 M/S Universal Cables Ltd. & Another Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
22-11-2016 M/s. Hazaribagh Co-Operative Cold Storage, Through Subhash Kumar Versus Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Chairman & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-10-2016 Amandeep Kaur Versus DLF Universal Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-10-2016 Sneh Kohli Versus The Universal English Trust, through the Managing Trustee & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-10-2016 Parikshit Parashar Versus M/s. Universal Buildwell Private Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2016 TDM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Team Universal Infractech Pvt. Ltd. & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
26-09-2016 Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd., Versus K. Ramamurthy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin Versus Harrisons Universal Flowers Ltd., Willingdon Island, Cochin High Court of Kerala
01-09-2016 Jitender Pal Verma Versus DLF Universal Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
27-05-2016 Pradeep John David Versus DLF Universal Limited & Another Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
19-05-2016 Sipra Thomes Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-05-2016 M/s. Universal Glass (A Division of Jagajit Ind. Ltd.) Versus Harpal Singh Supreme Court of India
31-03-2016 Raheja Universal Pvt. Limited Versus B.E. Billimoria & Co. Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-03-2016 Praveen Mehta Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-03-2016 In Re: Registrars Association of India (Rain) C/o Universal Capital Securities Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Securities Depository Ltd. & Others Competition Commission of India
28-03-2016 Universal Telecom, Reliance Communication Ltd., Represented by its sole Prop. Tapomay Chakraborty Versus Dilip Sadhukhan & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-03-2016 Suresh Chand Jain Versus M/s. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
11-03-2016 Nishant Agarwal Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
09-03-2016 Aditya Sharma Versus DLF Universal Limited. Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
12-02-2016 Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited. Versus Harnek Singh & Another Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box