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



Chicago Constructions International Pvt Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Managing Director S. Mohanakumar v/s State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- V RESOURCES INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51102MH2006PTC159669

Company & Directors' Information:- C & C CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L45201DL1996PLC080401

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049964

Company & Directors' Information:- CHICAGO CONSTRUCTIONS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KL2011PTC029879

Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L45309KA1983PLC038816

Company & Directors' Information:- S T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC127181

Company & Directors' Information:- I P CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC141372

Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52110UP1985PLC098830

Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L52110DL1985PLC019801

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

Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52110DL1985PLC019801

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

Company & Directors' Information:- RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1996PTC080862

Company & Directors' Information:- V S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100MH1997PTC109647

Company & Directors' Information:- K R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2008PTC172188

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

Company & Directors' Information:- P V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1998PTC094598

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

Company & Directors' Information:- K & R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201AS2011PTC010822

Company & Directors' Information:- M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2004PTC148776

Company & Directors' Information:- V S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA1980PTC003939

Company & Directors' Information:- T R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC161605

Company & Directors' Information:- CONSTRUCTIONS CO OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29248UP1946PTC001471

Company & Directors' Information:- S. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101MH2003PTC139538

Company & Directors' Information:- A.T. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201UP1990PTC011951

Company & Directors' Information:- OF WATER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2018PTC317142

Company & Directors' Information:- I. N. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400JK2013PTC003931

Company & Directors' Information:- WATER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74990DL2016PTC298912

Company & Directors' Information:- M D INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH1981PTC025007

    WP(C). No. 6292 of 2019

    Decided On, 20 March 2019

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P. CHALY

    For the Petitioner: D. Kishore, Meera Gopinath, Mini Gopinath, R. Muraleekrishnan (Malakkara), Advocates. For the Respondent: R1, B. Vinitha, Government Pleader, R2 to R4, P. Benjamin Paul, SC.



Judgment Text


1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner company incorporated under the Companies Act, seeking to quash Ext.P8 order passed by the 4th respondent dated 19.02.2019, declining to modify a condition sought for by the petitioner with respect to the qualification prescribed in the tender notification to have experience in the “sludge blanket type technology”, and for other related reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. The 4th respondent invited two tenders covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) for the work of Water Supply Scheme to Edayur Panchayat and Service Level Improvement of existing Water Supply Scheme to Irimbiliyam Panchayat and Valanchery Municipality in Malappuram District (Package-1), and for the work of Water Supply Scheme to Ramanchadi-Aligarh in Malappuram District (Package-1) under the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB), vide tender notification dated 02.02.2019. The last date for submission of the tender was on 28.02.2019, and the pre-qualification bid was scheduled to be opened on 05.03.2019. A portion of Clause 7.17.1.2.8 of Exts.P1 and P1(a) as modified by Ext.P3 series pertaining to pre-qualification bid is oppressive, unreasonable and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such conditions are incorporated only to favour a few contractors who had done Water Treatment Plants in the past with Upflow sludge blanket type clarifier, and it is also done with the intention of excluding major contractors like the petitioner from participating in the tender process. Therefore, the tender process, evident from Exts.P1, P1(a) and Ext.P3 series would reveal that the awarding process is vitiated by malafides and arbitrariness.

3. Petitioner is fully qualified in terms of the Notice Inviting Tenders, except to the impugned portion of the clause specified above. The said portion contemplates that the tenderer should have an additional experience in constructing a Water Treatment Plant in the past with Up flow sludge blanket clarifier of a minimum capacity prescribed therein. According to the petitioner, such a clause is quite unnecessary as the construction of Water Treatment Plant or the nature of the work which is proposed to be tendered does not require such an outdated technology. It is also pointed out that, as of now, the said technology is seldom used and all the existing contractors including the petitioner are having the expertise to undertake the said work. However, petitioner has not constructed a Water Treatment Plant with the aforesaid technology in the past, as it was not necessary to use the said technology despite the petitioner having more than two decades of experience in the field. However, that does not mean that the petitioner cannot do the work with the said technology, as the same does not require any special expertise or dexterity when compared to the conventional/lamella/place settler/tube settler technologies. The said clause creates an embargo for the petitioner to participate in the bid. Even though petitioner sought to delete the said clause, it was refused as per Ext.P8 order passed by the 4th respondent.

4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondents 2 to 4, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, the probable amount of contract for the first tender is Rs.34,43,62,963/- and Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-. The invitation of the tender and the schedule prescribed thereunder for completing the formalities are all admitted. According to the said respondents, as per the approved Detailed Engineering Report, it is envisaged to adopt innovative technology for water treatment. Considering lower land requirement and low operation and maintenance cost, it is decided to adopt modern Up flow Sludge Blanket type clarifier for these works. Sludge blanket clarifier is a treatment unit combining flocculation and upward flow of sedimentation, which is more efficient compared to the conventional sedimentation tank. It has the ability to treat water at a faster rate, resulting in less space requirement. The removal of suspended particles takes place by a combination of flocculation, sedimentation and straining as the water passes upwards through the blanket of sludge formed within the clarifier. Since the retention time required for this clarifier is less than conventional clarifoculator, the space requirement is less. Raw water and chemicals are hydraulically mixed eliminating the need for mechanical mixtures. Hence the meeting convened by Chief Engineer decided to adopt the technology for the works.

5. It was thereupon that the condition is incorporated to ensure a defect-free work from an experienced contractor. It is also stated that, for long period, the Water Authority was adopting conventional clarifiers. Later in the present past started implementing Plate settler type clarifier. Up flow Sludge Blanket clarifier technology is relatively new to Kerala Water Authority. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention put forth by the respondents is that, it was after due and effective study conducted, the Kerala Water Authority has decided to fix the pre-qualification criteria in Exts.P1 and P1(a).

6. Petitioner has submitted a representation dated 16.02.2019 before the 4th respondent, requesting to modify the NIT conditions, since the petitioner cannot participate in the tenders due to the past experience condition fixed in the NIT. The experience for dual media filter was later dropped as decided in the pre-bid meeting held on 16.02.2019 by the 4th respondent. Also the last date for submission of tender was extended by 15 days. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.02.2019 before the 3rd respondent, requesting to amend the prequalification experience criteria as specified above, which was rejected by the 4th respondent. The Tender Committee of the Kerala Water Authority constituted with Technical Member as Chairman met on 22.02.2019, discussed the representation submitted by the petitioner in detail and noted that the “Up flow sludge blanket type clarifier” is a superior technology and past experience in implementation of the same is necessary for the efficient functioning of the unit and formation of sludge blanket being sensitive. Hence, the Tender Committee opined that the action of the 4th respondent in fixing the pre-qualification criteria insisting additional minimum 10% experience in similar type technology is genuine, and it was also opined up flow sludge blanket type clarifier is a superior technology and many companies are carrying out these type of clarifiers in India, and it was thereupon that it was decided to reject the request made by the petitioner for deletion of the said condition. Therefore, according to the respondents, petitioner has not made out any case justifying interference of this Court, since there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the respondents taking a decision to reject the request made by the petitioner.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made across the Bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

8. The sole question to be decided is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to Clause 7.17.1.2.8, which clause read thus:

“Construction of Water Treatment Plants with modern technology (except Conventional Filters, Lamella, Plate settler, Tube settler):-

(a) Must have constructed a Water Treatment Plant in the past with any Technology for a minimum of 40% output capacity subject to a maximum of 40 MLD for his sole/Joint Venture/Partner of the Joint Venture.

For this work, must have constructed a Water Treatment Plant in the past with any Technology for a minimum of 452m3/hr output capacity for his sole/Joint Venture/Partner of the Joint Venture.

(b) In addition to the above, must have constructed a Water Treatment Plan in the past with similar technology for a minimum of 10% output capacity of the proposed treatment plant for his sole/Joint Venture/Partner of the Joint Venture. (If the bidder has 40% experience in the same innovative technology, no further experience in conventional technology is required).

For this particular work, in addition to the above, must have constructed a Water Treatment Plant in the past with Upflow sludge blanket type clarifier of a minimum capacity of 113.1m3/hr output capacity for his sole/Joint Venture/Partner of the Joint Venture.

For this particular work, in addition to the above, must have constructed a Water Treatment Plant in the past with Dual media filter of a minimum capacity of 113.1m3/hr output capacity for his sole/Joint Venture/Partner of the Joint Venture. (If the bidder has 452m3/hr experience in the above two (Upflow sludge blanket type clarifier and Dual media filter) innovative technologies, no further experience in conventional technology is required.”

9. It is an admitted fact that petitioner is not having qualification as is prescribed therein for construction of plant in accordance with the technology provided thereunder. Case projected by the petitioner is that, such a condition is incorporated in Exts.P1 and P1(a) to eliminate experienced contractors like the petitioner, and no special experience is required to carry out such construction. It is also pointed out that, it is with the malafide intention of helping the contractors who have done such works, such a condition is incorporated in Exts.P1 and P1(a). That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. D.Kishore submitted that, some of the conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender were removed as per Ext.P3 series of corrigendum issued. However, the request made by the petitioner to remove the pre-qualification condition of the outdated system of plant was declined. It is also pointed out that, as per Ext.P5 Manual issued by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, it is clear that there are other latest technologies, and therefore, the incorporation of such a condition will defeat the interest of the respondents.

10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority submitted that, such a condition was incorporated in Exts.P1 and P1(a) fully conscious of the fact that such a system is required in order to save space and also for efficient functioning. That apart, it is submitted that, on receipt of representation from the petitioner, the Tender Committee met and discussed the matter elaborately, and it has come to a definite conclusion that the incorporation of the said condition in Exts.P1 and P1(a) by the 4th respondent cannot be found fault with.

11. I have evaluated the situations put forth by the respective parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment of the apex court in 'Siemens Aktiengeselischaft and Siemens Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Others' [(2014) 11 SCC 288] to canvass the proposition that, if and when there are unconscionable conditions in the tender invitation, the courts are vested with ample powers to interfere with the same. So also, the judgment of the apex court in 'Reliance Telecom Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another' [(2017) 4 SCC 269] was also pressed into service, and submitted that, judicial review is possible, if there are any arbitrary and illegal conditions put forth in the Notice Inviting Tender.

12. In my considered view, the said qualification is incorporated in Exts.P1 and P1(a) by the respondents, in order to secure an experienced contractor who can execute the work of that particular type of plant efficiently to make it defect-free. Even though petitioner has a case that it was with the malafide intention that such a condition was incorporated, except the bald allegation made, petitioner could not put forth sufficient pleadings and materials to establish the said contention. Moreover, when the petitioner submitted the representation seeking removal of the said condition, it was evaluated by the Tender Committee and has arrived at a conclusion that incorporation of such a condition was consciously done, since the 4th respondent has found that such a system is better for the Water Authority. In my considered view, it is for the Tender Inviting authority to decide the rules under which the work is to be carried out, and it was thereupon that such a qualification was prescribed under Exts.P1 and P1(a). Apparently, there are other contractors who have carried out the work with such a technology, and therefore, petitioner cannot be heard to say that it was with the malafide intention of helping someone, such a condition was incorporated in the tender invitation. It is also equally important to note that, more than one person have submitted tender having such qualification. Therefore, it cannot be said that such a clause was incorporated to help any particular individual and ultimately the tender is accepted by the respondents from out of the contractors who have submitted sealed tenders, and therefore, it cannot be said that even if it is aimed at any person, that person may not get the contract, especially due to the fact that the bid was invited in sealed covers in two bid system. So also, merely because the petitioner is not qualified to participate in the tender, that cannot be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that such a condition is incorporated for the purpose of eliminating petitioner and others from the submission of bid.

13. So much so, so far as the tender in question is concerned, it is a commercial bid, and therefore, unless and until clear malafides are proved by the petitioner, in respect of the conditions incorporated in Exts.P1 and P1(a), petitioner is not entitled to succeed, as is claimed in the writ petition. Moreover, the scope of judicial review in contractual matters is well set

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

tled that court cannot sit in appeal over the soundness of the decision made by the competent authority, or its wisdom to arrive at the conclusion. On the other hand, court can only ascertain whether the decision making process was fair, transparent and bonafide. It is also pertinent to note that, when the petitioner submitted a representation to remove the qualification in question, the bid evaluation committee considered the same and has arrived at a conclusion assigning reasons. That apart, it is for the tender inviting authority to incorporate such conditions and qualifications in accordance with its requirements, feasibility and technical expertise, and any third person is not at liberty to dictate terms on the authority to include terms and conditions to suit his convenience and qualifications. So also, the authority while finalising the qualification must have taken into account various technological factors to suit its attire, and this Court is not expected to delve deep into such matters and arrive at a different conclusion, than the one arrived at by the tender inviting authority. As I have pointed out earlier, petitioner could not establish the pleadings put forth before this Court in respect of the malafides alleged against the respondents, and this Court also could not locate any arbitrariness or illegality to interfere with Ext.P8 decision, exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition has no sustenance, accordingly it is dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

28-08-2020 R.K. Singhal Versus M/s. Sudradh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Shri Laxmichand Damji Chheda, Mumbai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-08-2020 M/s. Web International Cargo Ltd., Rep. by its proprietor Srinivas P. Bhat Versus M/s. Magnum Logistics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Jayaram High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. & Another Versus Unwired Planet International Ltd. & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
24-08-2020 The Director of Income-Tax International Taxation, Bangalore & Another Versus The Executive Engineer, M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
20-08-2020 M/s. Life Cell International Private Limited, Represented by its Company Secretary D. Mahesh, Chennai Versus Vinay Katrela High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2020 Venus Enterprises, Represented by its Managing Partner B.V. Ayyappan & Others Versus Sri Moogambigai Constructions India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director K.M. Velumanie High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-08-2020 Velan & Others Versus The Junior Engineer, Public Works Department/ Water Resources Department, Thanjavur District Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-08-2020 R. Padmavathy Versus The Junior Engineer, Water Resources Organization, Public Works Department, Thanjavur Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-08-2020 G. Jayasri Versus The State, Rep. By the Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Dept., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-07-2020 K. Ravikumar Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Water Resources, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
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
17-07-2020 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Delhi International Airport Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-07-2020 Paras International Exports Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
01-07-2020 P. Kumaresan Versus The State of Tamilnadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Dept., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 M/s. Salem Constructions, A registered Partnership Firm, Rep. By its Managing Director, N. Selvam & Others Versus K. Santhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-06-2020 V. Veiluntha Rajan Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
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
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
10-06-2020 Hotel Nikhil Sai International Bar & Restaurant Versus Assistant Commissioner ST Audit & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-06-2020 Goodwill Non-Woven(P) Limited Versus Xcoal Energy & Resources LLC High Court of Delhi
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
19-05-2020 The Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation, Water Resources Department, Sinchan Bhavan, Kopri Colony, Thane (West) & Others Versus M/s. F.A. Enterprises & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
11-05-2020 South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd. (Seamec Ltd.) Versus Oil India Limited Supreme Court of India
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
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
24-04-2020 Bathurst Resources Limited & Another Versus L&M Coal Holdings Limited Court of Appeal of New Zealand
23-03-2020 B. Sivakumar & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-03-2020 Kerala Bottled Water Manufacturers Association (KBWA), Represented by Its President, Eastern Corporate Office, Kohi & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Environment Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
20-03-2020 M/s. Simnani Constructions & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
19-03-2020 RajuRangadhamaiah & Others Versus M/s. Vinyas Constructions Private Limited, Bengaluru National Company Law Tribunal Bengaluru
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
16-03-2020 T. Selvarasu & Others Versus The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Dr. Rajesh Jhorawat Versus Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New 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 Choda Bhutia & Others Versus State of Sikkim, Through the Secretary, Human Resources & Development Department Government of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
06-03-2020 RAUS Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Indian Bank High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-03-2020 Balubha Ashabhai Manek & Others Versus Gujarat Water Supply & Sewarage Board & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
05-03-2020 Taizuddin Ahmed Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Water Resource, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-03-2020 Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Proprietor of M/s. Elegant Constructions Versus State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-03-2020 Cambridge International School & Another Versus Priyanka Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
03-03-2020 Parida Constructions Versus State of Odisha & Others High Court of Orissa
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
26-02-2020 P. Thandapani Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 The Theosophical Society, Represented by its General Manager, S. Harihara Raghavan Versus Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2020 Saurabh Kar & Another Versus Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-02-2020 R. Thirupathi & Others Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-02-2020 V. Saroja Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions (P) Ltd. Dwaraka, New Delhi, Registered Office Bhatinda, Punjab, Represented by Its Director, Vikas Mehta Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
14-02-2020 Udaya Kumar Versus Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Ph Division, Aluva & Others High Court of Kerala
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
14-02-2020 APS Forex Services Private Limited Versus Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Others Supreme Court of India
11-02-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus C.R. Sons Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
11-02-2020 G. Thamaraiselvi Versus Secretary To Government, Union of India, (Department of Higher Education), Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-02-2020 Jai Bharathi Constructions Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Surender Reddy, Telangana Versus The Executive Director (Signal Projects) Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
03-02-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department, rep. by the Divisional Engineer (H) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division-1 Versus M/s. Jenefa Constructions, Civil Engineering Contractor, rep. by its Partner, M. Arunachalam High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 S. Thenmozhi Versus IDBI Bank Limited, Rep.by its Deputy General Manager, Human Resources, Mumbai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Alstom T&D India Ltd., Formerly known as Areva T&D India Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Rep. by its authorized signatory, Padappai Versus M/s. Texcel International Pvt., Ltd., Represented by Mukunthan C.O.O, Chengalpattu High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Others Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 KARE Power Resources Private Limited, Bengaluru & Another Versus Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
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 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
22-01-2020 P. Gnanamuthu (Deceased petitioner) & Another Versus The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply (TP4) Department, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-01-2020 B. Kumar & Others Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2020 MFAR Constructions Private Limited, Through its Assistant General Manager, Finance & Accounts S. Anish Versus The Union of India, Through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-01-2020 International Car and Motors Ltd. Versus Shyam Sundar Sen & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-01-2020 Export Import Bank of India & Another Versus Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-01-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
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
10-01-2020 K. Vasudeva Maniakarar & Others Versus S.Radhakrishnan, Proprietor, M/s. Venus Constructions, Mylapore & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
08-01-2020 R. Subramanian Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Chennai & 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
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
04-01-2020 HDFC Bank Limited V/S KPG International Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
03-01-2020 St. Joseph's Boy's Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Coonoor, Nilgiris Versus The Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration & Water Supply, The Government Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 J. John Winfred Versus International Airport Authority of India Rep. By Airport Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-12-2019 Babul Sarkar & Others Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-12-2019 Saleem Madavoor @ Muhammed Salim, National President, Loktantarik Yuva Janathadal Versus The Secretary to Government, Human Resources Department, New Delhi & Others 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
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
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
06-12-2019 In Re: M/s. MFAR Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Chief Executive Officer Fayaz Kamaluddin Versus Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Zone-II, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
06-12-2019 M/s. N.V. International Versus State of Assam & Others Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 Palanikumar Versus The Assistant Engineer(Water Resource Department), Irrigation Section, Public Works Department, Kanyakumari & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-12-2019 M/s. New My Home Constructions, Nallakunta, Hyderabad & Others Versus B. Padmavathi & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad