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



Exide Industries Limited Vs M/s. C.G. Enterprise


Company & Directors' Information:- EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L31402WB1947PLC014919

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039251

Company & Directors' Information:- V.S. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120HR2009PTC039570

Company & Directors' Information:- VS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31200MH2005PTC157071

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1946PTC000938

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1947PTC000501

Company & Directors' Information:- J INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101OR1960PTC000388

    C.O. Nos. 106, 107 & 108 of 2018

    Decided On, 18 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA

    For the Petitioner: Samrat Sen, Mainak Bose, Manali Bose, Soni Ojha, Advocates. For the Respondents: ----.



Judgment Text

1. The aforesaid three revisional applications, arising out of connected orders, are taken up for hearing together. Despite repeated service, the opposite party is not represented and as such, the matters are taken up for hearing ex parte.

2. In an agreement entered into between the parties on March 3, 2014, there was an arbitration clause. By virtue of the said clause, the parties had agreed to refer the difference, disputes or questions arising between them as to the meaning or effect of the agreement or as to the rights or liabilities of the parties arising thereunder or any matters or things relating to the agreement or arising out of or in connection therewith, either during the continuance of the agreement or after any termination or purported termination thereof, to an arbitrator to be appointed by the petitioner‐company only. Such arbitral proceeding was to be held in Kolkata in accordance with, and subject to, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification or re‐enactment thereof for the time being in force (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act").

3. Upon disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner appointed an arbitrator of its choice by a letter dated April 1, 2016.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice under Section 18(2) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2006 Act") from a Facilitation Council at Thane, Maharashtra, formed under the said Act, intimating the petitioner that the petitioner was required to appear before the said council and submit its defence statement within fifteen days from the date of such notice, failing which ex parte orders would be passed. From such notice, the petitioner learnt that the opposite party had filed a petition under Section 18(1) of the 2006 Act.

5. On April 18, 2016, a representation was made on behalf of the petitioner before the said Facilitation Council intimating the council that an arbitrator had already been appointed pursuant to the arbitration agreement between the parties and that the arbitral proceedings had already commenced under the 1996 Act. By such representation, the Facilitation Council was requested to keep the proceedings before it in abeyance and not to take any further steps therein. Thereafter a letter was issued on behalf of the opposite party to the petitioner containing certain allegations against the petitioner.

6. The first sitting of the reference under the 1996 Act was held on April 29, 2016. Thereafter several sittings were held by the arbitrator. After taking several adjournments, the opposite party filed its counter‐statement before the sole arbitrator. Subsequently a demurrer application was filed by the opposite party, challenging the jurisdiction of the sole arbitrator to entertain the dispute, primarily on the ground that a proceeding was already pending under the 2006 Act. Vide order dated March 23, 2017, the sole arbitrator dismissed the demurrer application by the opposite party on the ground that Section 16 of the 1996 Act specifically provided that such an application had to be made prior to the filing of the statement of defence and that the opposite party had failed to do so. Meanwhile, at the 12th sitting of the arbitral reference, held on March 17, 2017, the arbitrator informed the parties that the period of 12 months, as stipulated in Section 29‐A(1) of the 1996 Act, would expire on March 31, 2017 and as such, an extension of the said time would be required for the arbitrator to proceed with the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner proposed to have the time extended by a further period of 6 months as envisaged in Section 29‐A of the 1996 Act.

7. However, at the 13th sitting, held on March 21, 2017, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party handed over a letter dated March 21, 2017 conveying that the opposite party did not wish to consent to the extension of time.

8. In the above scenario, the petitioner filed an application before the District Judge at Alipore, District: South 24 Parganas under Section 29‐A(4) of the 2006 Act, praying for an extension of the arbitrator's mandate.

9. The opposite party took a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the said application on the ground that, in view of the enactment of the 2006 Act, no arbitral reference under the 1996 Act was maintainable.

10. The petitioner, in the meantime, had taken out three writ petitions in connection with the present three matters, bearing Writ Petition (C) No. 5378 of 2017, Writ Petition (C) No. 5379 of 2017 and Writ Petition (C) No. 5380 of 2017. In such proceedings, the High Court at Bombay passed an order dated May 3, 2017, by which all further proceedings of all those matters initiated under the 2006 Act before the Facilitation Council, were stayed.

11. Ultimately, the learned District Judge at Alipore, by his order dated November 30, 2017, dismissed on contest the applications, filed by the petitioner, in all three matters, under Section 29‐A(4) of the 1996 Act.

12. Being thus aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present three revisional applications.

13. It is argued by learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the District Judge applied wrong legal tests in dismissing the petitioner's applications under Section 29‐A(4) of the 1996 Act. It was observed by the District Judge that the arbitral proceeding under the 1996 Act was not maintainable once it was found that the opposite party was covered under the 2006 Act. It was further opined by the District Judge that since the writ petitions were pending in the Bombay High Court in connection with the proceedings under the 2006 Act, and since the matters in issue in the instant case were closely related to the issues to be decided in such writ petitions, the extension of time for the arbitrator to proceed would depend on the outcome of the said writ petitions. It was also held by the District Judge that since a small scale enterprise was involved in the matter, the said Court was not in a position to extend the time unless and until the writ petitions were disposed of. The District Judge held that the petitioner could not on the one hand, by filing the writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council, pray for allowing a private arbitrator to adjudicate, and on the other hand try to get some reliefs indirectly by praying for extension of time in the present proceeding.

14. Learned senior Advocate for the petitioner argues that the entire premise of the impugned order was bad in law. The writ petitions pending in the Bombay High Court had no connection with the prayer for extension of time to continue with the present arbitral proceeding.

15. It is submitted that the options before the District Judge, while hearing the applications for extension of time under Section 29‐A(4) of the 2006 Act, were limited. The Court could extend the time and, if it found that the proceedings had been delayed for reasons attributable to the Arbitral Tribunal, might even order reduction of fees of the arbitrator by not exceeding five per cent for each month of such delay. The Court could also substitute the arbitrator while extending the period. In case of such substitution, the arbitral proceedings would continue from the stage already reached and on the basis of the evidence and material already on record. In the event of a fresh arbitrator being appointed under the said section, the re‐constituted Arbitral Tribunal would be deemed to be in continuation of the previously appointed Arbitral Tribunal.

16. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that, apart from the aforesaid options, the Court below did not have any other, while deciding an application under Section 29‐A(4) of the 2006 Act.

17. In any event, the Court below did not have the power to stay an arbitral proceeding for any reason under Section 29‐A of the 2006 Act. Even if extension of mandate was refused to the arbitrator, the substituted arbitrator would have to continue with the arbitral proceedings, as per the scheme of the said section. Not only did the District Judge exceed his jurisdiction by staying the arbitral proceeding itself, such excess of jurisdiction was all the more glaring since such stay was made subject to the fate of the writ proceedings pending in the Bombay High Court, which had no nexus with the present proceedings.

18. In this context, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner cites a judgment reported at 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1789 [Faridabad Metal Udyog Pvt. Ltd & ors. vs. Anurag Deepak & anr.]. It was held in the said judgment by the Bombay High Court, inter alia that provisions under the arbitration agreement existing between the parties would not be affected by enactment of the 2006 Act and the dispute between the parties would be governed by the provisions of the existing arbitration agreement, under the 1996 Act.

19. Learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner next cites a judgment reported at 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 547 [M/s Hindustan Wires Limited vs. Mr. R. Suresh and another], in support of the proposition that it could not be said that, because Section 18 of the 2006 Act provided a forum of arbitration, an independent arbitration agreement entered into between the parties would cease to have effect. It was held that no provision in the 2006 Act negated or rendered ineffective an arbitration agreement entered into between the parties. There was no inconsistency between an arbitration conducted by the council under the 2006 Act and that conducted by an arbitrator under the 1996 Act.

20. The next judgment cited on behalf of the petitioner was reported at AIR 2012 Bom 178 [M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. and anr. vs. Micro, Small Enterprise Facilitation Council, through Joint Director of Industries, Nagpur Region, Nagpur]. In the said judgment, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur bench) held that because Section 18 of the 2006 Act provides for a forum of arbitration, an independent arbitration agreement entered into between the parties could not be said to cease to have effect. It was further held that the overriding effect of Section 24 of the 2006 Act would not have the effect of negating an arbitration agreement.

21. In the light of the aforesaid submissions and the materials on record, certain provisions of law, as set out below, are to be considered:

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996:

29‐A. Time‐limit for arbitral award. - "(1) The award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference.

Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub‐section, an arbitral tribunal shall be deemed to have entered upon the reference on the date on which the arbitrator or all the arbitrators, as the case may be, have received notice, in writing, of their appointment.

(2) If the award is made within a period of six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive such amount of additional fees as the parties may agree.

(3) The parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in sub‐section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months.

(4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub‐section (1) or the extended period specified under sub‐section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period:

Provided that while extending the period under this sub‐section, if the Court finds that the proceedings have been delayed for the reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal, then, it may order reduction of fees of arbitrator(s) by not exceeding five per cent. for each month of such delay.

(5) The extension of period referred to in sub‐section (4) may be on the application of any of the parties and may be granted only for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court.

(6) While extending the period referred to in sub‐section (4), it shall be open to the Court to substitute one or all of the arbitrators and if one or all of the arbitrators are substituted, the arbitral proceedings shall continue from the stage already reached and on the basis of the evidence and material already on record, and the arbitrator(s) appointed under this section shall be deemed to have received the said evidence and material.

(7) In the event of arbitrator(s) being appointed under this section, the arbitral tribunal thus reconstituted shall be deemed to be in continuation of the previously appointed arbitral tribunal.

(8) It shall be open to the Court to impose actual or exemplary costs upon any of the parties under this section.

(9) An application filed under sub‐section (5) shall be disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to dispose of the matter within a period of sixty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party."

MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2006:

"18. Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council.

(2) On receipt of a reference under sub‐section (1), the Council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter or seek the assistance of any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services by making a reference to such an institution or centre, for conducting conciliation and the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to such a dispute as if the conciliation was initiated under Part III of that Act.

(3) Where the conciliation initiated under sub‐section (2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer to it any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub‐section (1) of section 7 of that Act.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council or the centre providing alternate dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a dispute between the supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.

(5) Every reference made under this section shall be decided within a period of ninety days from the date of making such a reference."

"24. Overriding effect.--The provisions of sections 15 to 23 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force."

22. A perusal of the 2006 Act reveals that Section 24 thereof provides only that the provisions of Section 15 to 23, contained in Chapter V thereof, shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. The said chapter deals with delayed payments to micro and small enterprises. The individual sections being Section 15 to 23, deal with liability of buyer to make payment, date from which and rate at which interest is payable, liability of the buyer for recovery of amount due, reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, as to deposit of 75 per cent of the amount in terms of the decree, award or order in cases of applications for setting aside such decrees, awards or orders, establishment and composition of the aforesaid council, requirement to specify unpaid amount with interest in the annual statement of accounts and interest not to be allowed as deduction from the income.

23. As rightly laid down by the Bombay High Court in the cited decisions, Section 24 only gives overriding effect to Sections 15 to 23 against anything which is inconsistent therewith, contained in any other law for the time being in force.

24. The 1996 Act provides an independent forum and procedure and modalities governing adjudication by such forum and related matters, which do not infringe upon the domain of the 2006 Act. As such, the overriding effect given in Section 24 of the 2006 Act cannot, in any manner, curtail the jurisdiction of an arbitrator adjudicating upon a dispute within the contemplation of the 1996 Act.

25. As such, in the present case, there could not arise any question of granting stay of the arbitral proceedings, commenced in terms of a pre‐existing arbitration agreement between the parties, on the ground either of enactment of the 2006 Act or the pendency of any proceeding under the said Act.

26. That apart, the power of the Court, while deciding an application under Section 29‐A(4) of the 1996 Act, is limited. The Court cannot, under the said provision, stay the arbitral proceedings in connection with which extension of time is sought. The arbitral proceedings, under the scheme of Section 29‐A, would continue in any

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

event, either before the existing arbitrator upon extension of time, with or without any term or condition being imposed, or under a substituted arbitrator, from the stage already reached and on the basis of evidence and material already on record. The re‐constituted Arbitral Tribunal, if any, shall be deemed to be in continuation of the previously appointed Arbitral Tribunal. As such, there is no option before the Court taking up an application under Section 29‐A(4) to stay the arbitral proceedings itself on any ground whatsoever. 27. Moreover, the stay granted by the Bombay High Court in connection with the proceedings initiated by the opposite party under the 2006 Act could have no nexus with the present arbitral proceedings. Whatever result would be arrived at in the said writ petitions would only affect the proceedings under the 2006 Act, pending in Maharashtra, and would not touch the arbitral proceedings going on in Kolkata, before the sole arbitrator, in any manner whatsoever. 28. In view of such legal position, learned senior Advocate for the petitioner was justified in contending that the impugned orders in all the three matters were passed without jurisdiction. Accordingly, C.O. No. 106 of 2018, C.O. No. 107 of 2018 and C.O. No. 108 of 2018 are allowed, thereby setting aside the respective impugned orders dated November 30, 2017 passed by the District Judge at Alipore, District: South 24 Parganas, respectively in Miscellaneous Case No. 260 of 2017, Miscellaneous Case No. 261 of 2017 and Miscellaneous Case No. 259 of 2017. 29. The District Judge at Alipore, District: South 24 Parganas is directed to re‐hear the applications under Section 29‐A(4) of the 1996 Act, filed by the petitioner in the three cases, and to pass a reasoned order in the light of the observations made above as well as in accordance with the provisions of Section 29‐A of the 1996 Act. 30. There will be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

23-07-2020 Aqua Pump Industries, Rep by its Managing Partner Ramaswamy Kumaravelu & Another Versus N. Raju, Trading as S.M.Agriculture & Electronics, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-07-2020 N.M. Chandrashekar Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Terracon Projects, Represented by its Proprietor S.V. Babu Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 M/s. Durga Fabrication Works, Represented by its Proprietor, Prakash Ramu Rathod Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2020 D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi Versus Jasmeet Walia & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Prakash Industries Limited. Versus Bengal Energy Limited. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-06-2020 Khaleed Pasha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries (MSME, Mines & Textile), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-05-2020 Guru Nanak Industries, Faridabad & Another Versus Amar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Supreme Court of India
26-05-2020 Tips Industries Ltd. Versus Entertainment Network (Kindia) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-05-2020 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Nilesh Mahendra Kumar Gandhi & Another Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Check of Accounts) & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-05-2020 Spentex Industries Ltd Versus Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
27-04-2020 Bihar State Electricity Board & Others Versus M/s. Iceberg Industries Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Exide Industries Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 M/s. CJP Industries, Represented by its Managing Partner S. Julius Versus Amitha Bishnoi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 A Marine Industries Munambam, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Proprietor, P.T. Francis & Others Versus UCO Bank, Represented by The Chief Manager, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 S. Vaikundarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMD.2) Department, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 Peps Industries Private Limited Versus Kurlon Limited High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Sai Electromech Industries, A Sole Proprietary Concern rep.by Its Proprietor Umangkumar Joshi Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory S. Mahadevan High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Agrocel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-03-2020 V.S. Senthil Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 M/s. Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Ministry of Finance & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Ballarpur Industries Limited & Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Forests, Mantralaya In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 Electrosteel Steels Limited, Bokaro & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
04-03-2020 M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd., Rajapalaym Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Bank of India V/S M/s. Brindavan Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Trans Asian Industries Exposition Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd & Another High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Prime Cable Network & Another High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Labour-cum-Specified Authority & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-02-2020 Kamal Encon Industries Limited Through its Authorized Representative Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary World Trade Centre, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
24-02-2020 S. Suresh Versus The Management Exide Industries Ltd., Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-02-2020 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus GPT Steel Industries Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
20-02-2020 Asian Food Industries Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-02-2020 V.S. Duraisamy & Others Versus The District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 M/s Century Rayon (A division of Century Textile & Industries Ltd.), Maharashtra V/S Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through its, Chief Engineer (Commercial), Maharashtra And Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
18-02-2020 ITC Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Constituted Attorney, V.M. Rajasekharan Versus Shree Devi Match Industries, Gudiyattam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Clay Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Rajasthan & Others Versus Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited (Institution of Rajasthan Government) Through Managing Director, Ugyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus Gail (India) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 The Superintending Engineer, General Construction, TANTRANSCO Ltd., Tatabad, Coimbatore & Another Versus Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Director of Industries and Commerce, Represented by its Chairman, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 M/s. Tanfac Industries Limited, Rep. by its Secretary G. Balasubramanian Versus M/s. Orichem Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 M/s. S.K.J. Coke Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Coal India Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
07-02-2020 Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited V/S Laxmi Balaji Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
06-02-2020 K. Arumugham, Prop. Seetha Industries, Arakandanalu, Villupuram V/S The Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments, Chennai And Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 HDFC Bank Ltd. V/S JNK Electrical Industries Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
06-02-2020 Andhra Bank V/S Suguna Industries Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
05-02-2020 Sheo Shakti Cement Industries, Hazaribagh Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
05-02-2020 P. Krishnan Versus The Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce (Industrial Co-operatives)/(District Registrar of Industrial Co-op), Guindy, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 B.H. Srinivasa Murthy Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 D. Vasantha Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Commerce & Industries Department (MSME & Mines), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-02-2020 M/s. K.T.V. Health Food Private Limited Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu Industries Department Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Punjab National Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-02-2020 Ishwar Oil Industries and Others. V/S The Authorized Officer, Dena Bank and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad
31-01-2020 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax V/S Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Supreme Court of India
29-01-2020 Vimal Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary/Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 M/s. Elgi Electric & Industries Limited, Rep. by General Manager, Coimbatore Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Trichy Road Assessment Circle, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Authorised Signatory, New Delhi Versus M/s. Durga Bricks Industries, West Bengal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-01-2020 Century Rayon (A Division of Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Maharashtra Versus The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
27-01-2020 Vanessa Crasto Versus Central Public Information Officer Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd. Central Information Commission
27-01-2020 The Managing Director, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd., (SIPCOT), Egmore, Chennai Versus The Special Tahsildar, SIPCOT Unit Sriprumbudur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Versus Vilson Particle Board Industries Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-01-2020 M/s. Slar Machines & Methods, Rep. by its Partner, V. Saravanabhavan Versus The Branch Manager, National Small Industries Corporation Limited, Hosur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Maa Tarini Industries Ltd. & Another Versus PEC Limited High Court of Delhi
16-01-2020 M. Vijay V/S V.S. Surender & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-01-2020 M/s. Vijeta Projects & Industries Limited Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
10-01-2020 Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Versus Kosan Industries (P)Ltd. Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 M/s. Singapore Reality Private Limited, Represented by its Director having office at T. Nagar, Chennai also at Siruseri Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Industries Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Chowgule Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Krishna Shrikant Kumbhar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-01-2020 Viju M. Ittoop Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Industries Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
07-01-2020 M/s. Maa Bhadrakali Coke Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Dhanbad Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-01-2020 M/s. Refex Industries Limited, Kanchipuram District & Others V/S The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 P. Dhanalakshmi & Another Versus The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 Bengal Hammer Industries P. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
02-01-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Zuari Industries Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
02-01-2020 Himadri Speciality Chemicals and Industries Limited V/S Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
02-01-2020 Allahabad Bank V/S Dobhi Agro Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna
27-12-2019 Shah Metal Industries Versus G.L. Rexroth Industries Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-12-2019 Jindal Stainless Limited Versus Moorgate Industries India Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
20-12-2019 Manjeet Kapoor Proprietor M/s. Manjeet Plastic Industries, New Delhi Versus Tamil Nadu Textbook and Educational Services Corp. Chennai, Tamil Nadu High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-12-2019 M/s. Yogiraj Powertech Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Industries, Energy & Labour Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-12-2019 Rama Krishna & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary Industries and Commerce Mines Department A P Secretariat Velagapudi Guntur District A.P. & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-12-2019 Lokhandwala Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bala K. Ayer National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-12-2019 Sai Electromech Industries Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, Gujarat, India Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 M/s. 3F Industries Limited, Rep. by its Vice President (Co-ordination) & the Authorized Representative, AKS Moorthy Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Nagapattinam High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 Google India Private Limited Versus M/s. Visakha Industries & Another Supreme Court of India
09-12-2019 M/s. Sujana Universal Industries Limited Versus State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-12-2019 V.S. Kumaran & Another Versus K.B. Raju High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 M/s. Unicorn Industries Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
06-12-2019 M/s. Unicorn Industries Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd & Another Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
04-12-2019 Bhavik Bhimjiyani & Others Vs. Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-12-2019 M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, V.S. Prasad Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Project Director, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
03-12-2019 G. Jaisankar Srinivasan Versus The Tamil Nadu Small Industries, Development Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 P.G. Amirthalingam, Represented by his Power Agent V. Krishnasamy Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras