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



D. Thulaseedharan Nair v/s Mohandas College of Engineering & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- A M ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65910MH1981PTC187856

Company & Directors' Information:- D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29269TZ1932PTC000046

Company & Directors' Information:- D TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403MH2015PTC268305

Company & Directors' Information:- M C ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1972PTC006392

Company & Directors' Information:- V M ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28920MH1969PTC014224

Company & Directors' Information:- T A ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28992CH2003PTC025800

Company & Directors' Information:- IN ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210DL2011PTC212284

Company & Directors' Information:- THE ENGINEERING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1951PTC000699

    WP(C). No. 27804 of 2015

    Decided On, 19 March 2019

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.G. ARUN

    For the Petitioner: M.M. Jasmin, Lijo Joseph, Nidhi Sam Johns, Advocates. For the Respondents: Raji T. Bhaskar, GP., Kurian George Kannanthanam, Sr. Advocate, Tony George Kannanthanam, Advocate, Mary Benjamin, SC.



Judgment Text


Arun, J.

1. The petitioner's son T.S.Siddarth had obtained admission for B.Tech-Mechanical Engineering course in the first respondent college, on merit under Government quota in the academic year 2013-14. On the date of admission, i.e, on 5.7.2013, an amount of Rs.10,900/- was remitted by the petitioner towards special fees and caution deposit. Immediately thereafter, the Central Board of Secondary Education, as per Ext P3 letter, informed the petitioner's son that he had qualified for award of scholarship for higher education under Innovation in Science pursuit for Inspire Research by virtue of his performance within top 1% of the Senior School Certificate Examination conducted by the C.B.S.E in March/April, 2013. It was also informed that the performance in top 1% and enrolment into basic and natural science courses at B.Sc/Integrated M.Sc or M.S levels would automatically qualify Siddarth for scholarship for higher education from the Government of India valued at Rs.80,000/- per year for 5 years. Thereupon, the petitioner's son applied for admission at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Bhopal and obtained admission for the B.S-M.S Dual Degree Programme in the academic year 2013-14. His son having got admission in one of the most prestigious educational institutions in the country, the petitioner submitted a request before the second respondent on 22.7.2013, to release the original documents submitted at the time of admission and to issue Transfer Certificate, so that his son could join at IISER before 29.7.2013, the last date fixed for admissions there. On 22.7.2013 itself, the second respondent issued Ext P5 communication to the Director of the first respondent College stating that the documents and Transfer Certificate can be released after collecting fees for the entire duration of the course, amounting to Rs.2,60,000/-. In a purported gesture of grace, the second respondent directed that the petitioner may be exempted from paying liquidated damages of Rupees One lakh as a very special case and that a no claim declaration should be collected from the candidate before releasing the documents. Left with no other choice, the petitioner remitted the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and obtained the documents and the Transfer Certificate. Immediately thereafter the petitioner approached the Admission Supervisory Committee requesting that the first respondent college may be directed to refund the amount illegally collected towards fees for the entire duration of the course, to which his son had been admitted. Thereupon, the Admission Supervisory Committee issued notice to the first respondent college and sought its reply to the complaint submitted by the petitioner. The first respondent sent Ext P10 reply stating that the petitioner's son had joined for first year B.Tech Mechanical Engineering course in the college on 5.7.2013 and had sought to discontinue the course by letter dated 22.7.2013. That, the last date of admission to the course was 15.7.2013, as per the agreement and Government Order No. G.O(Ms) No.265/2013/HEdn. dated 13.6.2013 and since the request was made after closure of admission, the student was liable to pay fees for the entire duration of the course, as well as liquidated damages. The Admission Supervisory Committee did not take a decision in the matter immediately and hence this Writ Petition was filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.2,70,000/- collected from the petitioner. Pending the Writ Petition, the Admission Supervisory Committee issued Ext P16 order and thereupon, the Writ Petition was amended by including a prayer to quash Ext P16 order in so far as it declined the prayer for refund of tuition fee of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest.

2. Under the impugned Ext P16 order, the Admission Supervisory Committee had relied on Clause 12.2.4(a)(i) of the G.O(Ms) No.265/2013/H.Edn. dated 13.6.2013 (Ext P9) to hold that the petitioner is liable to pay the approved tuition fee of Rs.40,000/- for candidates admitted under merit quota for all the 4 years, amounting to Rs.1,60,000/-. It was therefore directed to deduct the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from the total amount remitted by the petitioner and to refund an amount of Rs.1,00,500/-, which included the balance amount of Rs.90,000/- from the tuition fee and Rs.10,550/- collected at the time of admission. The complaint was thus partly allowed directing the respondent college to refund an amount of Rs.1,00,550/- with interest @ 9% p.a from 23.7.2013 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount would carry interest @ 12 % p.a from 23.7.2013. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the amount as directed by the Admission Supervisory Committee has been refunded during the pendency of this Writ Petition. This submission is accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the only question that remains to be considered is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- retained by the College. The answer to this question lies in a proper understanding of the relevant Clauses in Ext P7, the KEAM Prospectus 2013 issued by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations and Ext P9, the Government Order approving the agreement with the Kerala Self Financing Engineering College Managements' Association, containing the major clauses regarding fees structure and allotment of seats. The relevant clauses in Ext P7 are extracted hereunder:-

12.2.4. Liquidated damages

(a) Levying amount towards liquidated damages from candidates discontinuing their studies:

(I) If any candidate admitted against 'Government' seats in Government/Aided/ Government Controlled Self-financing/ Private Self-financing/ KAU/ KVASU/ KUFOS Colleges, discontinues the studies after the closing of admissions in the same academic year, to join other Courses/Colleges or for other purposes, he/she is liable to pay liquidated damages of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) for the courses other than MBBS/BDS. The liquidated damages for those candidates discontinuing courses in Government Engineering Colleges will be Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). In all such cases the Transfer Certificate will be issued only after remitting the liquidated damages to the admitting authority concerned. Candidates belonging to SC/ST/OEC are exempted from this rule. Candidates belonging to 'Keralite' category, as per Clause 6.1(i), whose annual family income is below Rs.75,000/- and who have submitted Income Certificate along with the application for admission to Professional Degree Courses 2013 will also be exempted from payment of Liquidated damages. Candidates who are transferred from one institution to another as per proceedings of the University concerned are exempted from payment of liquidated damages. The students admitted in Government/Management seats in Professional Colleges who discontinue their studies to join National Defence Academy/Naval Academy are exempted from the payment of Liquidated damages.

In the case of Private Self financing Engineering Colleges, the date of closing of admission and levying of liquidated damages from the candidates discontinuing studies will be notified separately.

3. The corresponding clauses in Ext P9 are extracted below:-

19. The Educational Agency can retain the Tuition fee remitted by the student, in the event a student admitted under the Management quota or Government quota, discontinues his/her studies for any reason at any time after 15th day July 2013. In case, any student admitted to the College decides to cancel the admission for any reason whatsoever, the Educational Agency shall be entitled to collect the tuition fee of the entire course. However, in the event of the seat so falling vacant being filled up by a new candidate, the tuition fee collected as per this clause shall be refunded. The documents pertaining to such student shall be released only on payment of the above amount.

4. A conjoint reading of the aforementioned clauses makes it clear that a student who discontinues studies after the closing of the admissions in the same academic year, to join other courses/colleges or for other purposes is liable to pay liquidated damages of Rs.75,000/-. Further, the Education Agency is entitled to retain the fee remitted by the student, in the event of a student admitted under the Management quota or Government quota, discontinuing studies after the closing of admissions. The Management is also entitled to collect the fee for the entire course, in case any student admitted to the college deciding to cancel the admission for any reason whatsoever. This is subject to the condition that in the event of the seat so falling vacant being filled up by a new candidate, the tuition fee collected shall be refunded. The further stipulation is that the documents pertaining to such student shall be released only on payment of the amounts mentioned above.

5. Therefore, it is evident that in the case of a student, who discontinues the course prior to the last date of closing of admissions, he/she would be entitled for refund of the entire fees remitted. The liability to pay the fee for the entire duration of the course and liquidated damages would arise only if the student discontinues the course after the last date fixed for closure of admissions. Therefore, the vital aspect to be considered is as to what was the last date fixed for closing of admissions for the academic year 2013-14. Under Ext P7 it is specified that the date of closing of admissions and levying of liquidated damages from the candidates discontinuing studies after obtaining admissions in Private Self Financing Engineering Colleges will be notified separately. From Ext P9 it is evident that the last date for admission was notified as 15.7.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Admission Supervisory Committee relied on Ext P13 to contend that the last date for completing the admission process for Engineering Courses was later extended upto 15.8.2013, based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.9047 & 9048 of 2012. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 refutes this contention and submits that the last date for closing of admissions having been notified as 15.7.2013, in terms of Clause 12.2.4 of Ext P7, the direction contained in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequent extension of time for completing the admission procedure in Engineering Colleges would not result in automatic extension of the date specified in Ext P9, unless a fresh notification in that regard is issued, after consultation and obtaining consent from the Kerala Self Financing Engineering College Managements' Association. It is contended that dates specified in Ext P9 was based on an agreement entered into between the Government and the Managements' Association and therefore, any variation in the date can only be on the basis of consent/agreement obtained from the Managements' Association. In this regard it may be relevant to have a scrutiny of Ext P13 order. It is clear from Ext P13 that consequent upon the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, the Government amended Ext P7 prospectus by incorporating the following addition as Clause 11.6.8 (iii).

“The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ordered that the admission process for Engineering Courses shall be completed by 15th August, 2013. Hence no allotment/admission to Engineering Courses for 2013-14 will be made after 15.8.2013.”

6. Addition was also incorporated in Clause 9.7.10(a) as follows: -

However, the rank list for Engineering Courses will be valid till 15.8.2013 in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 13.12.2012 in C.A.No.9047 & 9048 of 2012.

7. The contention that the aforementioned modifications brought about to Ext P7 by way of incorporation would not result in automatic extension of the date specified in Ext P9 does not hold good for the reason that in Ext P9 Clause 1.7 of Ext P7 has been incorporated, which reads as follows:-

“Allotment of seats from the State rank list for all courses in Self Financing Engineering Colleges will be made in accordance with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, High Court of Kerala or orders of Government of Kerala/Government of India as per the law in-existence at the time of Centralized Allotment Process(CAP) and will be notified separately.”

8. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the process of allotment of seats, including the last date for closing of admissions would depend upon the orders to be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the High Court or that of the Government of Kerala/Government of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court having issued guidelines regarding admissions for the year 2013-14 and the Government having re-fixed the last date for completing the process of admission as 15.8.2013, it is not open for respondents 1 and 2 or the Managements' Association to contend that the extended time limit is not applicable to the Private Self-Financing Engineering Colleges.

9. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner had requested return of his son's original certificates and for issue of Transfer Certificate on 22.7.2013. Ext P5 & P6 reveal that the petitioner was compelled to remit the tuition fee for the entire duration of the course for which on 22.7.2013 itself, since he required immediate return of his son's certificates and Transfer Certificate from the first respondent college. The request for permission to discontinue the course having been made on 22.7.2013, much prior to the last date for closing of admissions fixed as per Ext P13, the petitioner was entitled for release of the original certificates and Transfer Certificate from the first respondent college without remitting any further amount. In fact, the first respondent college was bound to refund the amount of Rs.10,900/- remitted towards special fees and caution deposit. This being the case, the Admission Supervisory Committee went wrong in finding that the petitioner was liable to remit an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- towards the tuition fee for the entire duration of the course for which his son had joined at the first respondent college. Hence, the said finding of the Admission Supervisory Committee is vacated and consequently respondents 1 and 2 are found liable to refund an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- to the petitioner with interest @ 7% from 22.7.2013, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that in the event of respondents 1 and 2 failing to refund the amount within the time stipulated above, they would be liable to refund the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest @ 18% till the date of payment. The petitioner would be at liberty to seek initiation of revenue recovery proceedings through the authority concerned, in the event of respondents 1 and 2 failing to make the payment within the prescribed time.

10. Before parting with this case, we have to make a mention about the disturbing trend among some of the Private Self-financing Educational Institutions to fleece the students, who had joined their institutions on getting admission through the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP) and had, immediately thereafter, sought return of the original documents and in some instances refund of the fees, on getting admission for a course in a college/course of their choice. The plight of the petitioner herein, the father of one such student, is a classic example of the management holding the parents at ransom. This is a case where a brilliant student had sought to discontinue his admission with the first respondent college, on getting admission in one of the most prestigious educational institutions in the country, on merit and with a scholarship offered by the Government.

11. In this context, the following observation of Jeevan Reddy J. in Unnikrishnan's case (1993)1 SCC 645, assumes relevance:

“The hard reality that emerges is that private educational institutions are a necessity in the present-day context. It is not possible to do without them because the governments are in no position to meet the demand, particularly in the sector of medical and technical education, which call for substantial outlays. While education is one of the most important functions of the Indian state. It has no monopoly. The Private educational institutions-including minority educational institutions-do have a role to play"

“.....While we do not wish to express any opinion on the question whether the right to establish an educational institution can be said to be carrying on any “occupation” within the meaning of Art.19(1)(g),- perhaps, it is - we are certainly of the opinion that such activity can neither be a trade or business nor can it be a profession within the meaning of Art.19(l)(g). Trade or business normally connotes an activity carried on with a profit motive. Education has never been commerce in this country.....”

12. In P.A.Inamdar and others v State of Maharashtra and others (2005)6 SCC 537, one of the questions considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court was as to whether the Court in Islamic Academy (2003)6 SCC 697), could have issued guidelines in the matter of regulating the fee payable by students to the educational institutions. Answering the issue the Apex Court held as follows:

“Education, accepted as a useful activity, whether for charity or for profit, is an occupation. Nevertheless, it does not cease to be a service to society. And even though an occupation, it cannot be equated to a trade or a business.” “Capitation fee cannot be permitted to be charged and no seat can be permitted to be appropriated by payment of capitation fee. “Profession” has to be distinguished from “business” or mere “occupation”. While in business, and to a certain extent in occupation, there is a profit motive, profession is primarily a service to society wherein earning is secondary or incidental. A student who gets a professional degree by payment of capitation fee, once qualified as a professional, is likely to aim more at earning rather than serving and that becomes a bane to society. The charging of capitation fee by unaided minority and non-minority institutions for professional

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

courses is just not permissible. Similarly, profiteering is also not permissible. Despite the legal position, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the hard realities of commercialisation of education and evil practices being adopted by many institutions to earn large amounts for their private or selfish ends. If capitation fee and profiteering is to be checked, the method of admission has to be regulated so that the admissions are based on merit and transparency and the students are not exploited. It is permissible to regulate admission and fee structure for achieving the purpose just stated.” (Emphasis Supplied By Us) 13. The State Government has enacted the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Nonexploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006 with the avowed objective of bringing about equanimity and transparency in the matter of admission and collection of fees by the self-financing educational institutions. The Admission Supervisory Committee and Fee Regulatory Committees are constituted to achieve this objective. Further, Section 14 of the Act empower the Government to issue directions to any professional college or institution, as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the Act or to give effect to any of the provisions contained therein, or in any Rules or orders made thereunder and the management of the college or institution shall comply with every such direction. If despite these statutory safeguards students are being exploited, it is for the Government to take appropriate measures, to prevent exploitation of students who seek discontinuance of the course before the last date fixed for closure of admissions in a particular year; lest the students and their parents are forced to succumb to the demands of the selffinancing institution and to later seek refund, resulting in protracted litigation. The writ petition is allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-07-2020 Mahrishi Arvind Institute of Engineering, Rajasthan Versus Ranjit Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, R. Natraj Versus M/s. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited, Represented by its Director, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-07-2020 Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering & Technology & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
06-07-2020 K. Prem Chander & Another Versus M/s. Hella India Automotive Private Limited Formerly known as FTZ Engineering (P) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 Rohini Gogoi (Under Suspension) Versus State of Assam Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Health Engineering Deptt. High Court of Gauhati
19-06-2020 The Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur & Another Versus Dr. Subroto Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 O.R. Rahul & Others Versus Indian Institute of Space Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
19-05-2020 M.G. Narasimha Rao Versus The Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement, Roving Squad, Chengalpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-05-2020 Score Information Technology Ltd. Versus Central Organisation, Ex-Serviceman Contributory Health Scheme High Court of Delhi
11-05-2020 South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd. (Seamec Ltd.) Versus Oil India Limited Supreme Court of India
11-05-2020 Posco Engineering & Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sinew Developers Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Labour And Two Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Appellate Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-03-2020 M/s. COPCO Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director K. George Versus Southern Railway, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-03-2020 M/s. Rite Choice Foundations and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, C.K. Sridhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-03-2020 Jayakumar Assistant Professor-Cum-Assistant Director, Centre For Social Exclusion & Inclusion, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus Dr. Jyothi S. Nair & Others High Court of Kerala
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Versus TOYO Engineering Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
05-03-2020 Dr.(Mrs) Sania Akhtar, Working as Principal Director (Senior Principal Scientist), Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology SARP, Bangalore Versus The Director General, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers, Guindy, Chennai & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
05-03-2020 Dinesh Kumar Rao Versus G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
04-03-2020 Anil Ramdas Pawar V/S Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-03-2020 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Limited V/S Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit-1 Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 S. Aruputharaj Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Education, Science & Technology, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 M/s. Project Engineering Corporation Limited, Ernakulam, Represented by Manager (Administrations) Binu Jacob Versus M/s. Doshion Private Ltd., Ahmedabad, Represented by Its Director, Rakshit Doshi High Court of Kerala
25-02-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit-I & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Rep. by its Chairman, Er.A. Mohamed Yunus, Trichy & Others Versus The Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Guindy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Nileshbhai Arvindbhai Gandhi, Director, Cube Construction Engineering Limited Versus State of Gujarat & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
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
13-02-2020 Daniel Oommen Versus National Institute of Technology, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
12-02-2020 Richa Jindal Versus Pec University of Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-02-2020 V. Vennila Versus The Executive Engineering Transmission Line Construction/ Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. (TANTRANSCO), Thanjavur District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Achal Bisht Versus Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management & Catering Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-02-2020 M/s. JV Engineering Associate, Civil Engineering Contractors, Represented by its Partner, S. Jaikumar Versus General Manager, CORE, Allahabad, Represented by Deputy Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification, Chennai, Egmore High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 M/s. Shintec Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Authorised Signatory, Vanagaram Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) JJ Nagar Assessment Circle, Thirumangalam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Rasi Travels & Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd., A company having its Registered Office at Janpath, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Tarun Keshrichand Shah & Another Versus M/s. Kishore Engineering Company & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
03-02-2020 Syndicate Bank V/S Narayanadri Institute of Science And Technology and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
25-01-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd. Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raipur
21-01-2020 Tractebel Engineering Private Limited Versus Patnazi Power Limited National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
21-01-2020 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Nandanam, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. UB Engineering Limited, Rep. by its Power of Attorney G.D. Deshpande & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 The Indian Officer's Association, Chennai Versus M/s. Swaruba Engineering Construction Company Private Limited, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Meerut Development Authority Meerut Versus M/s Civil Engineering Construction Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-01-2020 State of AP Versus Devi Engineering & Construction High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-01-2020 Masaddar Ali Laskar, Officer Surveyor, Office of the Director GDC, Assam Nagaland, GDC Versus The Union of India, Through the Secretary, To the Government of India, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-01-2020 M/s. Jullundur Engineering Complany, Jalandhar V/S Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-01-2020 The Principal , Global Institute of Fashion Technology (GIFT) & Another Versus Bikramadittya Sai & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
09-01-2020 Ajay Kumar Bishnoi, Former Managing Director, M/s. Tecpro Systems Ltd. Versus M/s. Tap Engineering, Rep. by Jawahar High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 M/s. Sathee Engineering Construction Company, Rep. by its Proprietor, Gopu Kumar, Kollam Versus Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Caparo Engineering India Limited V/S Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs and Excise, Ujjain Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-01-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, "Aaykar Bhavan" Versus Gigabyte Technology (India) Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
06-01-2020 Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi Versus Shibu M. Job, Now Working as Director (Postal Life Insurance), Kolkatha & Others High Court of Kerala
03-01-2020 Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Versus Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-01-2020 C. Narayanasamy (Deceased) & Others Versus The Executive Engineer, Agriculture Engineering Department, Tiruvannamalai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-01-2020 Raj Engineering Works and Others. V/S Indian Overseas Bank DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM
20-12-2019 Infant Jesus College of Engineering, Rep. by its Chair Person, A. Roselet Bai Versus The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 M/s. Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Represented by its Authorized Representative, New Delhi Versus V.O.Chidambaram Port Trust High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 Standard Chartered Bank Versus Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
17-12-2019 M/s. Lanco Hills Technology Park Pvt Ltd. Versus Manisha Balkrishna Kulkarni & Another Supreme Court of India
11-12-2019 D.R. College of Engg. & Technology, College Campus at V&PO Kakoda Versus Nitin Parashar Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
02-12-2019 Basava Engineering School of Technology Rep. by its Principal B.J. Patil Versus State of Karnataka Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Department of Technical Education High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
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
25-11-2019 National Highways Authority of India Versus Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
21-11-2019 The Registrar, National Institute of Fashion Technology, N.I.F.T. Campus, Taramani, Chennai & Another Versus Sam D. Raja Prabhu & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 M/s. Coverntry Springs and Engineering Company Limited & Others Versus M/s. Assets Reconstruction Company of India Limited (ARCIL) & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-11-2019 The Manager, Vimal Jyothi Engineering College, Kannur & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
15-11-2019 M/s. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kerla Water Authority High Court of Kerala
13-11-2019 The Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Sub Regional Office, Kochi Versus M/s. Western Marine Engineering, Kochi, Represented by Its Managing Partner, K.T. Jacob High Court of Kerala
13-11-2019 Majaffar Hussain Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-11-2019 Biju Borah Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-11-2019 Ranjit Sukla Baidya, Tripura Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Post, Ministry of Communication & Technology, Government of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
29-10-2019 Vinod Kumar Jain Versus U.T. Administration, through Secretary Engineering, Chandigarh & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
29-10-2019 K.A. Mohammed Manikfan, Junior Scientific Officer, Department of Science & Technology, Kavaratti Versus Union of India, Rep. by The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti & Others High Court of Kerala
25-10-2019 Hindustan Engineering Training Centre, Rep. By its President 40, Chennai Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax –III 121, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-10-2019 Teledata Technology Solutions Versus Official Liquidator High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-10-2019 S. Ravi & Others Versus Dev Anand Vijayan, Executive Director, The Management of Sri Karthikeya Spinning & Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., Formerly known as Perur Engineering Products, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-10-2019 M/s. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Represented herein by its authorized Signatory, Satish Padmanabhan Versus M/s. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US)LLC & Others High Court of Karnataka
17-10-2019 M/s. Teems Engineering Construction, Rep. by its Partner, G.R. Ravi, Chennai Versus The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, General Construction Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-10-2019 Vivek Verma Versus Ipro Sugar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
11-10-2019 R. Rajkumar & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
30-09-2019 M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory A. Vinolin Versus M/s. Shri Ramana Geavy Engineering P. Ltd., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus FEPL Engineering (P) Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
26-09-2019 Snehacharya Institute of Management & Technology Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
23-09-2019 National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Others Versus M/s T.K. Engineering Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
13-09-2019 Pragatisheel Engineering Shramik Sangh Industrial Estate, Chhattisgarh Versus Simplex Castings Ltd, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2019 Ramsay Exim & Technology Private Limited & Others ICICI Bank Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-09-2019 K. Dhanasekar Engineering Contractor Versus The Union of India, rep.by its General Manager Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2019 Manjeera Engineering & Construction Company Private Limited Versus Union of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-09-2019 Ethos Ltd. Versus Vijay H.A. Proprietor Interscap Engineering National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2019 Ashish Manik Versus Sr Marine & Offshore Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
06-09-2019 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-09-2019 M/s. Velar Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director A.C. Vadhivelu Versus The Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Kanchipuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2019 IL&FS Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Formerly Maytas Infra Ltd., Represented by Prabhakar Reddy Versus Government of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
29-08-2019 Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair, Rtd. Professor & Director of School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
28-08-2019 Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Versus A Consortium of Sime Darby Engineering Sdn. Bhd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-08-2019 Sudhan Ranjan Bhowmik Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Ministry of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati