for example: TATA AIG

  for example: Indian Contract Act

  for example: Ratan Tata

  for example: Negotiable Instruments Act

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



Engineering Workers Association v/s Radium Creation Ltd. & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- C L ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300PB1992PTC012057

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

Company & Directors' Information:- RADIUM CREATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900MH2012PLC238831

    Writ Petition No. 5221 of 2017

    Decided On, 17 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.C. GUPTE

    For the Petitioner: Nayana Buch, S.D. Rawool I/b. Shailesh K. More, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate, P.N. Anaokar, Rahul D. Oak, Siddhesh S. Shetye, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Oral Judgment:

1. This petition challenges an order passed by the Industrial Court at Thane on a complaint of unfair labour practice. The complaint was in respect of Item 6 of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, i.e. against a lockout proposed and continued by the management, deemed to be illegal under that Act.

2. The Respondent company issued the lockout notice on 5 July 2014 and declared the lockout effective from 20 July 2014. Immediately after the notice was issued, the Petitioner union filed the present complaint, alleging an illegal lockout and claiming a perpetual injunction. The union applied for an interim order, which was declined by the Industrial Court. That order was confirmed by this court in a writ petition filed by the union. The union thereafter carried the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by an interim order, directed the Respondent employer to deposit in court wages of workmen corresponding to the period of lockout and till the date of its interim order. In pursuance of this order, a sum of Rs.1.40 crores was deposited by the Respondent employer in court. The lockout was thereafter lifted by the employer on 22 July 2015. The complaint thereafter came for final disposal before the Industrial Court. The court held the lockout to be legal and directed the amount deposited by the Respondent employer to be refunded. This order has been challenged by the union in the present petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner union submits that what the Industrial Court had to decide in this case was not merely the legality of the lockout but also its justifiability. Learned Counsel submits that though this lockout may have been legal at the inception, its continuance for an indefinite period, by way of a subsequent act on the part of the employer, amounts to an unjustified lockout. Learned Counsel relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Statesman Limited vs. Their Workmen (1976 AIR SC 758) as well as the case of Maharashtra General Kamgar Union vs. Balkrishna Pen Pvt.Ltd. (1987-II-CLR-374(Bom) decided by a Division Bench of our court in support of her submission. Learned Counsel also relies on the observations made by the Supreme Court whilst disposing of the special leave petition after ordering deposit of wages during the lockout period. Learned Counsel submits that the Supreme Court accepted the submission advanced before it that the entitlement of workmen to these benefits would depend upon whether the lockout was legally valid and justified. The court noted that this finding was yet to be recorded by the Industrial Court. The court directed the amount deposited before the Industrial Court to be utilized for disbursement in favour of the workmen subject to the condition that each one of them filed before the Industrial Court an undertaking to the effect that in case the court 'records a finding that the lockout was legal or justified and that finding is finally upheld by the appellate/revisional authorities the amount so received shall be refunded back to the company'. Learned Counsel submits that in the present case, despite these specific directions of the Supreme Court, the Industrial Court desisted from framing any issue of justifiability. Learned Counsel submits that in fact the Industrial Court expressly declined to consider the question of justifiability as part of its judicial exercise whilst disposing of the complaint.

4. As for the law on the point, it is important to note that Item 6 of Schedule II of the MRTU and PULP Act refers to a lock out 'deemed to be illegal under this Act'. The concept of 'deemed illegality' is to be found in Section 25 of that Act. Section 24 of the Act defines 'illegal strike' as also 'illegal lockout'. Subsection (2) defines an 'illegal lockout' to be a lockout which is commenced or continued in the manner provided in clauses (a) to (g) thereof. Section 25 then provides for a reference to a Labour Court for a declaration that the strike or lockout is illegal. Where the employer of any undertaking proposes or commences a lockout, the State Government or the recognised union or, where there is no recognised union, any other union of the employees in the undertaking, may make a reference to the Labour Court for a declaration that such lockout is illegal. Under Subsection (5) of Section 25, where any lockout declared to be illegal under this section is withdrawn within forty-eight hours of such declaration, such lockout is not deemed to be illegal under the Act. If not so withdrawn, it would be deemed to be illegal and a complaint of unfair labour practice can be entertained in respect of it. In other words, the provisions of MRTU and PULP Act require the Industrial Court to entertain a complaint only when the court declares a lockout to be illegal under that Act and within fortyeight hours of such declaration, such lockout is not withdrawn by the employer.

5. In this scheme of things, the court under the MRTU and PULP Act merely considers the aspect of legality of a lockout with reference to clauses (a) to (g) of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 thereof. It does not consider the other and wider aspect of justifiability of the lockout. That wider question may fall for consideration before a labour court or an industrial tribunal in a reference made to it under the Industrial Disputes Act. It may declare the lockout to be illegal, if it is for any reason unjustified. The leading authority on the jurisdiction of the Court under the MRTU and PULP Act to consider justifiability of a lockout is the case of Modistone Limited vs. Modistone Employees Union (2001-I-CLR-1009). The Division Bench of our court in that case clearly held that the question of justifiability of reasons can be gone into only in an industrial adjudication by seeking a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and not in a complaint under the MRTU and PULP Act. The employees have an option to either seek a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act or to go under the MRTU and PULP Act. If, however, they choose to go under the latter Act, the Court deciding their complaint of unfair labour practice can only decide whether the lockout is legal or illegal, i.e. whether it is in accordance with the provisions of MRTU and PULP Act. As part of this exercise, the court may even decide whether the reasons stated in the notice of lockout are nonexistent or sham or irrelevant, i.e. non-germane to the employer-employee relationship. However, it cannot go into the question of sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons and in that sense decide generally the question of justifiability.

6. The judgment of Statesman Limited (supra) cited by learned Counsel for the Petitioner does consider justifiability of a lockout. It does hold that a lockout may be justified at its commencement, but its continuance beyond a certain period may be unreasonable and therefore, unjustifiable. It is, however, important to note that that case was decided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and, as this court has explained in Modistone case (supra), that question, it cannot be gainsaid, can always be considered by an Industrial adjudicator on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

7. What the case of Balkrishna Pen Pvt.Ltd. (supra) decides is that there is no need for a Labour Court to declare illegality of a lockout on a reference under Section 25(2) of the MRTU and PULP Act for the lockout to be treated as 'deemed to be illegal' upon it not being withdrawn within forty-eight hours of such declaration; the Court whilst entertaining a complaint of unfair labour practice itself, while deciding the case of deemed illegality, may first decide illegality of such lockout and thereafter give forty-eight hours' time to the employer to withdraw the lockout and if it is not so withdrawn within forty-eight hours, declare the lock out to be 'deemed illegal' and give relief on the workmen's complaint. The case is no authority for the proposition canvassed by the Petitioner union, namely, that in a complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule II of the MRTU and PULP Act, the court can go into the aspect of justifiability of the lockout.

8. It is true that the Supreme

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Court, whilst disposing of the special leave petition, expected the Industrial Court to decide whether the lockout was 'legally valid or justified'. It is, however, clear, to my mind, that the word 'justified' used by the court, in the present context, would imply a legal justification, as may be permissible for the court to consider in a complaint of unfair labour practice filed under Section 28 read with Item 6 of Schedule II of the MRTU and PULP Act and not any and every justification, which may be gone into in a reference of an industrial dispute. 9. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. 10. At the request of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the first Respondent states that the first Respondent shall not apply for refund of the amount deposited by it before the Industrial Court for a period of six weeks from today. The statement is accepted.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

17-02-2020 Nileshbhai Arvindbhai Gandhi, Director, Cube Construction Engineering Limited Versus State of Gujarat & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
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
05-02-2020 Tarun Keshrichand Shah & Another Versus M/s. Kishore Engineering Company & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
20-12-2019 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 Standard Chartered Bank Versus Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
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
25-11-2019 National Highways Authority of India Versus Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
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
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
29-10-2019 Vinod Kumar Jain Versus U.T. Administration, through Secretary Engineering, Chandigarh & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
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
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
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
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
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 Ethos Ltd. Versus Vijay H.A. Proprietor Interscap Engineering National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
28-08-2019 Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Versus A Consortium of Sime Darby Engineering Sdn. Bhd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-08-2019 Dr. Bareet Chand Versus IMS Engineering College & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-07-2019 M/s. Emkay Engineering Works, Represented by its Proprietor, R. Chinniah, Chennai Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Pattaravakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-07-2019 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented by the Chief General Manger, Telecom (Tamilnadu Circle), Chennai & Others Versus M/s. Sakthi Engineering Constructions, Erode & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2019 M/s. Aditya Auto Products & Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Head-HR Ramesh Pai Versus M/s. Aditya Auto Products (NTTF), Rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
12-07-2019 Bhajarang Engineering College, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Trustee, M.G. Baskaran Versus All India Council for Technical Education, Rep. by its Advisor - I (Approval), New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2019 Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Rajinder Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-07-2019 A. Chinnadurai, Handloom Contractor, Government College of Engineering 1st Gate, Salem Versus M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., rep. by its General Manager, Indian Oil Bhavan, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-07-2019 M/s. Perfect Engineering Associates Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus The Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-06-2019 M/s. Shree Venkateshwara Educational & Charitable Trust, Represented by its Chairman, P. Venkatachalam, Administering Shree Venkateshwara Hi-Tech Engineering College, Erode Versus The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-06-2019 Indirani Versus The Superintending Engineering, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Salem Electricity Distribution Circle & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-06-2019 M. Kumarasamy Health & Educational Trust, Administering M. Kumarasamy College of Engineering, Rep. by its Managing Trustee, Dr. K. Ramakrishnan Versus The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2019 The Director, Rajagiri School of Engineering & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
17-05-2019 The Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Karimganj Versus M/S Gopinath Udyog P Ltd. Karimganj & Others High Court of Gauhati
08-05-2019 Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited Versus Standard Chartered Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-04-2019 Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Rep. by its Sivakumar, Accountant, Madurai Versus Joint Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-04-2019 Diffusion Engineering Limited Versus Prithviraj Patle In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
18-04-2019 M/s. Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd., Rep.by T. Ashok Reddy, Associated Vice-President (Legal) Versus The Commissioner of Central Tax & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
16-04-2019 M/s. Southern Cogen Systems Private Limited, Vellachery, Rep. by its Director B.S. Adisesh Versus M/s. Sree Venkateswara Engineering Corporation, Coimbatore, Rep. by its Managing Director, C.N. Sathyamurthy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-04-2019 Galvanotek Industries Private Ltd. Versus Coventry Spring & Engineering Company Ltd. & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
12-04-2019 Andrews Mathew Versus Madura Coats Ltd., Ambasamudram Taluk, Through it's Manager, (Engineering Services), S. Balakrishnan Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-04-2019 The Executive Engineering IITMPD-II, CPWD, IITM Project Circle, IITM Campus, Chennai Versus M/s. IVRCL Ltd., Andhra Pradesh & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-04-2019 Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Versus Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd. Supreme Court of India
10-04-2019 M/s. Rabi Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST & Excise, Kolkata North Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Regional Bench Kolkata
05-04-2019 The Managing Director, Hi tech Engineering and Eco Solution (P) Ltd., Edayar, Paravoor, Ernakulam Versus Mathew Philip, Vettikkad Estate, Kaliasanad & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
03-04-2019 M/S. Zentech Off-Shore Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of GST & CE, Chennai South Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
02-04-2019 L.S. Raja Versus Engineering in Chief & Chief Engineer (General) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-03-2019 Noorul Islam College of Engineering & Others Versus Gopikrishnan Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-03-2019 UK Insurance Ltd. Versus R & S Pilling t/a Phoenix Engineering United Kingdom Supreme Court
27-03-2019 Ballarpur Industries Limited, through M.S. Pradeep, DGM Law, Gurgaon Versus Karapara Project Engineering, by its POA Hariharan Potti, Surat & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-03-2019 Savik Vijai Engineering Private Limited, Jayanagar, Bangalore & Others Versus BCL Financial Services Private Limited, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
19-03-2019 D. Thulaseedharan Nair Versus Mohandas College of Engineering & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
12-03-2019 Pinnacle Institute of Engineering & Management(PIEM) Versus Pinak Pani Ghosh & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-03-2019 M/s. Career & Career Edu Services Private Limited, a registered company, Patna & Another Versus Ganadipathy Tulsi's Jain Engineering College, Chitoor-Cuddalore Road, Rep. by its Chief Administrative Officer, A. Elango High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2019 DR. P. Dananjayan Versus The Principal, Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2019 The Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Sub Regional Office, Kaloor, Kochi Versus M/s. Western Marine Engineering, Kochi, Represented by Its Managing Partner K.T. Jacob High Court of Kerala
14-02-2019 Biswajit Santra Versus Pinnaccle Institute Engineering and Management & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-02-2019 Chhavi Chander Jha Versus Vishwa Karma Engineering Works High Court of Delhi
04-02-2019 Mobina Khatoon & Others Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-02-2019 Tremchless Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-01-2019 Gail India Limited Versus Triveni Engineering & Industires Limited High Court of Delhi
29-01-2019 M/s. Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd. & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-01-2019 The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai & Others Versus K.R. Subramanian, Engineering Contractor & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2019 M/s. Silpi engineering Works Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-01-2019 M/s. Pieco India Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Shatabdi Switchgears & Control Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
18-01-2019 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus M/s. Abrol Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-01-2019 M/s. Easun Reyrolle Limited Versus M/s. Nik San Engineering Co. Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-01-2019 Adhiaman Engineering College Rep. By its Principal K.M. Srinivasan & Another Versus Narayanappa High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2019 The Chairman, College of Engineering & Technology, Harshith Group of Institutions Versus Syed Yousuf Nasheed & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
02-01-2019 Rajendra Prasad Rao Versus Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Dhurwa, Ranchi High Court of Jharkhand
28-12-2018 DCIT, Circle 6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s. National Engineering Industries Ltd Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
26-12-2018 Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Rep. by its Assistant Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India Versus IL & FS Engineering and Construction Company Ltd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
07-12-2018 SATEC ENVIR Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus WAAREE Energies Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
05-12-2018 Aditya Auto Products & Engineering India Pvt Ltd. Versus Aditya Auto Products (Nttf) Employees Union High Court of Karnataka
03-12-2018 Asha TM (USN: 1SP13EC010) & Others Versus Principal S.E.A. College of Engineering & Technology & Others High Court of Karnataka
30-11-2018 Delhi Development Authority Versus Engineering & Industrial Corporation P. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
16-11-2018 Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. & Another Versus Engineering Workers? Association & Others Supreme Court of India
13-11-2018 M/s. TCV Engineering Ltd., Adyar, Rep. by its Director, C. Mohan Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II (2), Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-10-2018 M/s. S.S. Forging & Engineering Ltd. Versus BSE Limited SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
23-10-2018 Deputy Commissioner of Versus Mohanish Engineering Pvt. Ltd Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune
17-10-2018 Trident Steel & Engineering Co. & Another Versus Vallourec, represented by its President-Philippe Crouzet & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-10-2018 M/s. Daulataram Engineering Services P. Ltd, Mandideep M.P Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income, Bhopal Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore
14-09-2018 M/s. Maa Engineering, Kolkata Versus Acit, Cir-51, Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
12-09-2018 Abhay R. Bhatwadekar (Since Deceased Through Lrs.) & Others Versus Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-09-2018 The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai & Another Versus Sri Nandahanam College of Engineering & Technology, Rep. by its Chairman, P.M.N. Mohan Krishnaa & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2018 D.Y. Patil College of Engineering Through its Registrar Narendra Suryakant Jain & Another Versus All India Council for Technical Education, Through its Member Secretary & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-09-2018 M/s. Tbas Construction Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd. Indian Erecters Engineering Contractors Consortium, Represented by T.U. Ajimon Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Transport Bhavan, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
31-08-2018 Pankaj Kumar Das Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Chief Engineer, Military Engineering Service, Shillong Zone, Meghalaya & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
24-08-2018 Chennai Radha Engineering Works Versus Dcit Corporate Circle 1(2) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
24-08-2018 Gail (India) Limited Versus Newton Engineering & Chemicals Ltd. High Court of Delhi
21-08-2018 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
16-08-2018 Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Versus M/s. II & FS Engineering & Construction Company Limited High Court of Delhi
10-08-2018 Re: Precision Engineering & Fabricators Pvt Ltd. (In Liqn.) & Another Versus The O/L, High Court, Calcutta High Court of Judicature at Calcutta