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



Ghaziabad Engineering Company Private Limited v/s Commissioner of Sales Tax


Company & Directors' Information:- SALES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29191GJ1985PTC007880

Company & Directors' Information:- P R SALES CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52399PN2011PTC141408

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

Company & Directors' Information:- GHAZIABAD ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1944PLC000790

Company & Directors' Information:- C P ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27209TN1987PTC014052

Company & Directors' Information:- L & V ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202MZ2005PTC007690

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

    S.T.R. Nos. 28 to 30 of 1977

    Decided On, 22 August 1990

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANTHOSH DUGGAL

    For the Appearing Parties : Randhir Chawla, M. K. Arora, Advocates.



Judgment Text

B.N. KIRPAL, J.


In respect of the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following questions of law to this Court :


"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Financial Commissioner was justified in holding that the fuel injection pump and its spare parts dealt with by the applicant was covered under entry 1 of the First Schedule appended to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as then extended to the Union Territory of Delhi and was liable to tax at 10 per cent under that Act and not at 5 per cent as claimed by the applicant, and at the rate of 3 per cent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and not 1 per cent as mentioned in Notification No. S.R.O. 2717 dated 23rd August, 1957 ?"


2. Briefly stated the facts, as per the statement of case, are that the assessee is a registered dealer which is engaged in the business of selling motor parts, tractor parts, tractors and agricultural implements. During the year 1966-67, the assessee had sold fuel injection pumps and their spare parts and the same were, as per the assessee, covered by the item of general machinery and it was liable to pay tax at 1 per cent under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee had been selling the goods to parties dealing in fuel injection spares required for diesel engines or to parties manufacturing diesel engines used for agricultural purposes.


3. Initially the assessee paid under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi, local tax at 10 per cent treating the fuel injection pumps, etc., as spare pans of motor vehicles. Before the assessing authority, however, it was contended that payment of sales tax at 10 per cent was a mistake and the said equipment could not be regarded as spare parts of motor vehicles.


4. The assessing authority held that the goods were mostly sold to parties who dealt with motor vehicles and the goods were nothing else but motor parts though the possibility of their double use with or without slight alteration or modification was not ruled out. - The assessing authority rejected the claim that the said goods should be taxed at 5 per cent. Under the Central Sales Tax Act, by regarding the said equipment as spare parts of motor vehicles, the same was subjected to tax at 3 per cent.


5. Appeals were filed both under the Central Act as well as the local Sales Tax Act to the Assistant Commissioner but without success. Revision before the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax was also dismissed. Second revision petition was then filed before the Financial Commissioner who observed that in the instant case it had been proved by evidence that all the sales of fuel injection pumps had been made by the assessee to the parties dealing in motor spare parts and that it had been charging tax at 10 per cent, meaning thereby that the assessee had been treating it as motor spare parts. For that reason, the revision petition was dismissed.


6. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an application for reference to the Tribunal, who succeeded the Financial Commissioner, and the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this Court.


7. Before us two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the assessee. It has been submitted by Mr. Chawla that the fuel injection pump is not a spare part and is, therefore, not covered by the entry in question. In the alternative, it is submitted that even if it be held that the fuel injection pump is a spare part, then it will be a spare part of the diesel engine and not of a motor vehicle.


8. Mr. Arora, on the other hand, has submitted that the fuel injection pumps are parts of motor vehicles and have been rightly taxed at 10 per cent under the local Sales Tax Act and 3 per cent under the Central Act.


9. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant entries. Under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Union Territory of Delhi, during the relevant assessment years, tax at 10 per cent was leviable in respect of those items mentioned in the First Schedule. Item 1 of the First Schedule, with which we are concerned in the present case, reads as follows :


"1. Motor vehicles, including chassis of motor vehicles, motor tyres and tubes and spare parts of motor vehicles."


10. For the period 1st December, 1956 to 30th September, 1959, the said entry was replaced by the following entry :


"1. (a) Motor vehicles including motor cars, motor cycles, and motor cycle combinations, motor taxi cabs, motor scooters, motor omnibuses, motor vans, motor lorries and motor trucks.


(b) Chassis of motor vehicles.


(c) Component parts of motor vehicles.


(d) Accessories of motor vehicles including rubber tyres, tubes and batteries."


11. After 30th September, 1959, the entry which has been first quoted was brought back, the effect of which was that in the year in question there is no reference to component parts of motor vehicles. With promulgation of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, a new entry in the First Schedule, pertaining to motor vehicles, etc., has been inserted, which reads as follows :


"Motor vehicles, including chassis of motor vehicles, motor tyres and tubes, accessories, component parts and spare parts of motor vehicles and motor bodies."


12. A perusal of the aforesaid three entries will show that initially, prior to 1st December, 1956 and after 30th September, 1959, till the promulgation of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, in the entry pertaining to motor vehicles, there was no reference to component parts. Component parts were covered by this entry between 1st December, 1956 to 30th September, 1959 and after the promulgation of the 1975 Act.


13. It is not in dispute that the fuel injection pump is used as a part of the diesel engine. The diesel engine is, inter alia, used for being fitted in the trucks. According to the respondent, the assessee has sold diesel engines mostly to the consumers or dealers of motor parts. It is, therefore, submitted by the respondent that the fuel injection equipment, which consists of fuel pump and its spare parts, has been used in diesel engines and thus those diesel engines have been used and fitted in motor vehicles alone. It is sought to be contended that the equipment in question has to be regarded as a spare part of motor vehicle.


14. Looking at the relevant entry in the Schedule it is evident that the spare part has to be of motor vehicle and of nothing else. It is not necessary, for the view which we are taking, as to what is the full scope and effect of the expression "spare part". For the purposes of this reference, we will proceed on the assumption that the equipment in question is a spare part and not a component of diesel engine.


15. The expression "spare parts of motor vehicles" would appear to be those types of spare parts which are used directly in the motor vehicles. The spare part, when fitted in a motor vehicle, should have its own use and utility. The fuel engine pump and its parts is an integral and necessary part of a diesel engine. Without the fuel pump the diesel engine cannot function and the fuel pump is of little value to a motor vehicle without a diesel engine. It would appear to us that a fuel pump is a part of a diesel engine.


16. It is not disputed before us that the diesel engine is not covered by entry 1. Diesel engine is not taxed at the rate of 10 per cent but is taxed as a residuary item, which at the relevant point of time, was being subjected to 5 per cent tax. It would appear that if the diesel engine itself was being taxed at 5 per cent then its part like a fuel pump should not be taxed at a rate different than that. Be that as it may, even if it be assumed that the fuel pump is a spare part but it is a spare part of a diesel engine. The various items in the First Schedule have to be strictly construed because they seek to levy a higher rate of tax. Furthermore, if there be any ambiguity of doubt then the interpretation which favours the assessee must be given. As diesel engine is regarded as a distinct and a separate taxable item than a motor vehicle then, it would appear to us, that a spare part of a diesel engine cannot be regarded as a spare part of the motor vehicle merely because the diesel engine is subsequently fitted in the motor vehicle.


17. It would be helpful to refer to some decided cases where similar questions had come up for consideration. In the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Free India Cycle Industries 1970 (26) STC 428 [This decision has been disapproved by the Supreme Court : See page 233 supra. - Ed.] the Allahabad High Court was concerned with an entry

"bicycles, tricycles, cycle rickshaws and perambulators and parts and accessories thereof other than tyres and tubes"


The assessee was a dealer in cycle and cycle goods and the question arose whether rexine saddle covers manufactured and sold by it would fall within that entry. It was observed by the Division Bench that the expression "parts and accessories" qualified the word "bicycles, tricycles, etc." The entry was regarded as referring to parts and accessories of the vehicles and did not include accessories of individual parts or accessories of the vehicle. Dealing with the question of rexine covers, it was held that,


"rexine covers in question are used as a covering of the saddle or seat of a cycle. The seat or saddle of a cycle is, of course, a part of the cycle because without it the cycle is not complete. A rexine cover in that sense is not a part of the vehicle"


A similar question again came up for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shadi Cycle Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1971 (27) STC 56 [This decision has been disapproved by the Supreme Court : See page 233 supra. - Ed.]. One of the questions which arose there was whether leather covers were accessories of cycle or could be taxed as cycle parts. Dealing with this contention, it was observed by the Allahabad High Court as follows :


"A cycle seat, no doubt, is a cycle part but it becomes a cycle part only when it takes the shape of a cycle seat. A cycle seat comes into being only when the leather cover is mounted upon the springs and is fixed in place with nuts and bolts. The component parts of a cycle seat like springs, nuts and bolts and the leather covers separately cannot be called as cycle parts. The leather covers, no doubt, can be used only in the manufacture of cycle seats but by themselves they are not cycle parts."


Applying the analogy of the aforesaid observations, the fuel pump, like the springs and nuts and bolts of a cycle seal, is a part of the diesel engine and cannot be regarded as a spare part of the motor vehicle. In the diesel engine various parts are used including fuel pump.


18. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mir Mohammad Ali 1964 AIR(SC) 1693, 1964 (54) ITR 105, 1964 (2) SCJ 354, 1964 (7) SCR 846, 1964 (53) ITR 165, the Supreme Court, after referring to the Privy Council decision in the case of Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman, Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality 1922 (49) ILR(Cal) 190, held that a diesel engine was machinery because the Privy Council had observed that machinery meant some mechanical contrivances which, by themselves or in combination with one or more contrivances, by the joint movement and interdependent operation of their respective parts generate power or evoke, modify, apply or direct natural forces with the object in each case of effecting so definite and specific a result. The diesel engine was, therefore, regarded as a self-contained unit even though it was installed in motor vehicle. It is precisely for this reason that in the Sales Tax Act in Delhi, diesel engine is taxed separately and, as per Mr. Chawla, is regarded as a machinery or part of a machinery and taxed, under the 1975 Act, at the rate of 5 per cent. Irrespective of the fact as to under what entry sales tax is levied on a diesel engine, there can be no manner of doubt that a fuel pump, with which we are concerned in the present case, is only a part or a component of a diesel engine. It has no independent use or utility in a motor vehicle without its being attached to an engine.


19. Mr. Arora has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Acme Mfg. Co. Ltd. 1990 (78) STC 79. The question which arose in that case was with regard to the taxability of valves. It was held by the Bombay High Court that valves are component parts of diesel engine and that diesel engines were components or parts of motor vehicles. The relevant entry in the Schedule of the Bombay Sales Tax Act described the goods taxable under entry 58(2) as,


"component and spare parts of motor vehicles specified in sub-entry (1) ..... not being such articles as are ordinarily also used otherwise than as such parts and accessories."


It was held by the court that a component part of a component part of a motor vehicle was a component part of the motor vehicle. The Bombay High Court was not concerned with an entry like the present where the expression "component part" is absent. In entry I in the Delhi Act, as it stood at the relevant point of time, reference was to spare parts of vehicles. Fuel pump is neither an accessory nor a spare part of motor vehicle. It is, on the other hand, a part of an engine.


20. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in interpreting the various entries common parlance test has to be used. In other words, in common parlance what does an entry mean ? There can be no dispute with the proposition put forth by Mr. Arora but applying that test to the present case we find that, in common parlance, a fuel pump has to be regarded as a part of the engine and not a part of the motor vehicle. It is an admitted fact that diesel engines are of various types and they are put to use in motor vehicles, tractors and other uses also. Diesel engines invariably have fuel pumps, though the sizes of the fuel pumps may change depending upon the ultimate use to be put to the different types of diesel engines. Be that as it may, a fuel pump can only be regarded as a part of a diesel engine and cannot be regarded as a spare part of a motor vehicle or a tractor merely because the diesel engine, to which the fuel pump i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

s fitted, is ultimately installed in a motor vehicle or a tractor. Diesel engine is machinery which is self-contained but may or may not be used in conjunction with other mechanical parts or items. When it is installed in a motor vehicle it does not cease to be machinery of which fuel pump is a necessary or an integral part. Diesel engines cannot be regarded as a spare part of a motor vehicle. 21. Lastly it had been contended by Mr. Arora that the test to determine whether a marketable product falls under a specific item or not is to see the way in which the product is identified by people dealing with it or using it, that is to say what is its functional character. It was contended that the assessee had sold the fuel pumps to various motor part dealers and, therefore, applying the functional test, the fuel pumps in question should be regarded as spare parts of motor vehicles. We are unable to accept this contention. It is an admitted case that the parts which are sold by the assessee, namely, the fuel pumps, are used for being fitted on to the diesel engines and the functional character of the fuel pump is that it is used as an integral part of the diesel engine. Diesel engine is a machinery by itself and a fuel pump may be regarded as a spare part of the diesel engine but it is not possible for us to accept that it has to be regarded as a spare part of the motor vehicle. !!! 22. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question of law referred to us, by the Sales Tax Tribunal, in the negative and against the Revenue. The parties will, however, bear their own costs. Reference answered in the negative.
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
29-07-2020 Yogesh Suresh Chaudhari Versus M/S. Auto Wheels, Kubota Tractor Sales Services & Spares, Maharashtra & 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 M/s. Sanwaliya Tractor Sales & Service, Rajasthan & Others Versus Bhagwati Devi Bhatt & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
18-06-2020 M/s Saroj Sales Organization & Another Versus Dolly Bharucha & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Monika Sales Agencies & Another Versus Mahesh Nagari Sah. Patsanstha Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
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
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 Amar Kumar Saraswat Versus M/s. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 M/s. Paul Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Hari Darshan Sevashram Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 M/s. R. Prakashchand Jewellery, Chennai Versus The Secretary, Tamilnadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 M/s.The Coimbatore Cosmopolitan Club, Coimbatore Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl. Bench), Coimbatore & Others 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
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
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
28-02-2020 M/s. Kge Yes Residency Private Limited, Chennai Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai & 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 Dharmapuri Handloom weaver's Cooperative Production Sales Society Limited., Represented by its Administration Dharmapuri Liquidator of the Society Babu Versus P. Sambantham High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 M/s. Sharadha Terry Products Ltd., Coimbatore Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Commercial Taxes Buildings, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Executive Director, Sales And Marketing Renault India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Paramjeet Singh Brar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 In Re, Plasser India Pvt. Ltd. V/S Harbour Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Others Competition Commission of India
05-02-2020 S. Prasanna Raj V/S The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division) Salem & 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
04-02-2020 Society of Welfare Handicapped Person Versus The Regional Sales Manager, RFCL Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
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
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 Sangrur Sales Corporation Versus United India Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
13-01-2020 M/s. Jullundur Engineering Complany, Jalandhar V/S Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
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
08-01-2020 Tvl. Brahma Sakthi Tin Factory, Rep. By its Partner SVS Velkumar, Villupuram Versus The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, rep. By its Secretary, City Civil Court Building, Chennai & Others 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
03-01-2020 Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Versus Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-01-2020 Balakrishna Sales Corporation V/S Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Cochin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Bangalore
03-01-2020 M/s. Confluence Petroleum India Ltd., Represented by its Sales Manager N. Murugan Versus The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
16-12-2019 Kuber (India) Sales Pvt. Ltd, Represented by Sri Debraj Choudhury Versus Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala & Others High Court of Tripura
03-12-2019 M. Lakshmi Versus The Secretary D.D.9 Uthangarai Agriculture Producers Co-operative Sales Societies Ltd., Krishnagiri District & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
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
19-11-2019 The Manager, Machino Techno Sales Ltd. Versus Prithwis Chanda Deb & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
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
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
15-10-2019 M/s Fortune Automobiles (India) Pvt., Ltd., (Ford authorized sales and services dealers), Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.Nirva Modi & Others Versus Bandi Venu Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
10-10-2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. & Another Versus Dulichand Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata
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
09-09-2019 Manjeera Engineering & Construction Company Private Limited Versus Union of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-09-2019 Ashish Manik Versus Sr Marine & Offshore Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
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
21-08-2019 M/S Premier Car Sales Ltd. Shahnazaf Road Lko.Throu. Director Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Tax Ashok Marg Lko High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-08-2019 Dr. Bareet Chand Versus IMS Engineering College & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2019 M/s. Porwal Sales Versus M/s. Flame Control Industries High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-08-2019 M/s. Dulichand Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Sree Howrah Stores, partnership firm, represented by its partner, Ashok Kumar & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-08-2019 Kashish Country Resort Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Bansal Sales Corporation High Court of Delhi
31-07-2019 M.J.R. College of Engineering & Technology, Rep., by its Principal, G.V. Ramu & Another Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Corporation Bank, Damalacheruvu Rep., by its Branch Manager, Sudhir Kumar Dubey High Court of Andhra Pradesh
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
22-07-2019 Corsan Corviam Construccion S.A.-Sadhbhav Engineering Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade & Taxes High Court of Delhi
18-07-2019 The Sales Manager, M/s.Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd, Adoor Branch & Another Versus Shaiju.P. Mathew & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
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