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



Gopal Chandra Jaiswal v/s M/s. Birla Tyres & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA TYRES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25209WB2018PLC228915

Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L01132WB1919PLC003334

Company & Directors' Information:- GOPAL CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U00513MP1948PTC000460

Company & Directors' Information:- H CHANDRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990MH1952PTC008894

    F.A.T No. 35 of 2013 (Appellate Side)

    Decided On, 24 March 2017

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ASHA ARORA

    For the Appellant: Ashok Banerjee, Soumyen Datta, Pinaki Brata Ghosh, Susmita Majumder, Nandita Maji, Advocates. For the Respondents: Aniruddha Chatterjee, Rahul Karmakar, Amal Mitra, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Asha Arora, J.

1. This First Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant arises out of the judgement and decree dated 19th November, 2012 passed by the learned Judge, VIIth Bench, City Civil Court Calcutta in Title Suit No. 315 of 1998.

2. The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The plaint case, sans unnecessary details is as follows: The plaintiff is a dealer and trader in various types of scrap items including scrap rubberized fabric (nylon) and red poly. By an auction notice No. 1/BT/97-98 dated 31st March, 1997 the defendant No. 1 M/S Birla Tyres, through its auctioneer the defendant no. 2 M/S Tirupati & Company notified sale of various scrap items including material described as 'Scrap Rubberized Fabric (nylon) (including Red Poly)' weighing approximately 185 tons by public auction to be held on 17th April, 1997 at Kalamandir, Calcutta. Plaintiff participated in the aforesaid auction by offering a price of Rs. 17,800/- per metric ton which being the highest bid, was accepted by the defendants. As per terms and conditions of the auction sale plaintiff deposited Rs. 3,69,300/- as security deposit which was accepted by the defendant no. 1. Plaintiff lifted approximately 50 M.T. and 610 kgs of scrap rubberized fabric (nylon) including red poly and paid the price thereof including sales tax and excise duty amounting to Rs. 11,05,533/- to the defendant no. 1 who supplied about 12 tons of red poly along with the scrap material. In the bills and invoice raised by the defendant no. 1 the material was described as 'scrap rubberized fabric (nylon)' and red poly was deliberately omitted therein. The defendant no. 1 illegally charged excise duty @ 18% on the red poly. Plaintiff made representation and protested against the matter but in vain. Inspite of repeated requests and reminders the defendant no. 1 failed to refund an amount of Rs. 38,448/- paid by the plaintiff as excess excise duty. Plaintiff was unable to sell red poly which became an unaccountable item since it was not mentioned in the invoice. Due to breach of contract by the defendant no. 1 who failed to rectify the invoice, plaintiff was unable to lift the entire quantity of 185 tons of material purchased by him for valuable consideration thereby causing loss to his business. By a letter dated 17th September, 1997 the defendant no. 1 illegally forfeited the security deposit. By a notification no. 2/BT/97-98 dated 12th September, 1997 the defendant no. 1 through the defendant no. 2 notified the sale of the remaining quantity of the material which was purchased by the plaintiff. In the said second auction notice the item was described as scrap rubberized fabric (nylon) but red poly was not mentioned. With these assertions plaintiff claimed refund of the security deposit of Rs. 3,69,300/- and the excess amount of excise duty of Rs. 38,448/- with interest @ 18 per cent per annum on the said amount from 1st July, 1997 to 31st January, 1998. Plaintiff sought for a declaration that the forfeiture of security deposit by the letter dated 17th September, 1997 is illegal, arbitrary, void and not binding upon him. A decree for recovery of Rs. 4, 50,561/- against the defendant no. 1 has also been claimed.

4. The suit has been contested by the defendant no. 1 by filing written statement wherein the material averments made in the plaint have been disputed. It is the specific case of this defendant that the plaintiff failed to discharge his part of the obligation under the contract by not lifting the entire quantity of material which was correctly described in the invoice. Breach of contract by the plaintiff entitled the defendant no. 1 to forfeit the security deposit. Defendant categorically disputed the assertion that excise duty was charged for red poly and that the plaintiff was prevented from lifting and taking delivery of the entire material. Denying all other allegations made in the plaint, defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court arrived at the finding that the plaintiff failed to prove his case and is therefore not entitled to any relief in the suit which was accordingly dismissed on contest against the defendant no. 1 and exparte against the proforma defendant with cost.

6. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred the present appeal.

7. Inviting our attention to the auction notice dated 31st March, 1997 (exhibit 1) and the list of auction material (exhibit 1(a)), Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff/appellant strenuously argued that it is clearly mentioned in exhibit 1(a) that 185 tons of scrap rubberized fabric (nylon) (including red poly) was offered for sale by public auction for which the plaintiff’s bid being the highest was accepted but red poly item was deliberately omitted in the invoice and in the acceptance letter which amounted to breach of contract. Mr. Banerjee sought to impress that the contract was concluded on the date of auction which was held on the basis of the auction notice and the dismissal of the suit on the basis of the acceptance letter was not justified.

8. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 countered that red poly has not been mentioned as a separate item in exhibit 1(a) nor was it offered for sale or sold to the plaintiff as a separate item. So there was no question of mentioning it in the invoice. Referring to the plaintiff’s letter dated 16th June, 1997 (exhibit 5) and 1st July, 1997 (exhibit 5(a)), Mr. Chatterjee submitted that there is no whisper therein of any monetary loss incurred by the plaintiff due to non mention of red poly in the bills and invoice. It has further been argued that the defendant no. 1 was constrained to invoke the forfeiture clause in the acceptance letter (exhibit 1(b)) since the plaintiff failed to lift the scrap material even on the extended date and inspite of reminder. In support of such submission Mr. Chatterjee pressed into service the letters dated 22nd July, 1997 and 17th September, 1997 (exhibit 6 and 6(a)). Referring to the discussion on 'Tenders' in Chapter 2 of Chitty on Contracts (Volume I) Mr. Chatterjee argued that an auction notice is an invitation for offer and not an offer to sell to the person making the highest bid. There is no contract until the offer is accepted by the person asking for it. Placing reliance on the case of Kunwar Chiranjit Singh versus Har Swarup reported in AIR 1926 Privy Council 1 learned advocate for the respondent contended that refund of security deposit cannot be claimed by the plaintiff since there was breach of contract on his part. To buttress his argument in support of forfeiture of the security deposit Mr. Chatterjee also referred to the case of Dharam Chand Soni and another versus Sunil Ranjan Chakrabarty and another reported in AIR 1981 Calcutta 323.

9. An advertisement intended to lead to the making of a bilateral contract is not generally an offer. It is commonly regarded as an invitation to treat. At an auction sale, the general rule is that the auctioneer’s request for bids is not an offer that can be accepted by the highest bidder. It is the bid that constitutes an offer, which the auctioneer may, but generally is not bound to accept. An acceptance is a final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of the offer. In the case at hand the undisputed acceptance letter dated 17th April, 1997 (exhibit 1(b)) is a legally enforceable agreement for sale which is binding upon the parties. As per the acceptance letter (exhibit 1(b)) the defendant no. 1 agreed to sell to the plaintiff 185 tons of rubberized fabric (nylon) at the rate of Rs. 17,800/- per ton on 'as is where is basis'. The item red poly does not figure anywhere in the said contractual document. Significantly, the plaintiff signed on the aforesaid document without raising any dispute regarding non mention of red poly therein. By signing on the acceptance letter plaintiff accorded his approval and acceptance of its contents including its terms and conditions as is evident from the concluding part of the document (exhibit 1(b)) which reads as follows:

'This letter is being issued in duplicate; please sign & return the second copy of the letter signifying your acceptance of the said arrangements'

It is not the case of the plaintiff/appellant that he signed on the acceptance letter without perusing and understanding its contents. We are not convinced with the submission that the plaintiff/appellant signed on the aforesaid document in good faith without taking note of the fact that red poly was not mentioned therein. Curiously enough, plaintiff did not lead any evidence to substantiate this plea. On the contrary, in his cross-examination PW 1 stated that 'this is the sole transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant'. A reasonably prudent man would normally not repose faith on someone with whom he is transacting for the first time. In our view the plaintiff/appellant has taken a futile plea of desperation which is far from tenable.

10. PW 1 admitted in his cross examination that prior to the bid he inspected the material offered for sale and on being satisfied, he made the bid. There is nothing on record to show that there was an agreement for sale of red poly to the plaintiff/appellant or that the said item was sold to him. Therefore there is no merit in the contention that red poly should have been mentioned in the bills and invoice. There is also no document to prove that excise duty was charged separately on red poly. The argument that there was breach of contract on the part of the defendant no. 1 by not mentioning red poly in the acceptance letter and in the invoice is fallacious for the reasons herein above discussed. It is clear from exhibit 1(b) that the defendant no. 1 agreed to sell 185 tons of scrap item described as rubberized fabric (nylon) to the plaintiff so there was no question of mentioning the item red poly in the invoice and bills. Plaintiff’s claim for mentioning red poly in the acceptance letter and in the bills on the basis of the auction notice which is merely an invitation for offer, is not legally sustainable.

11. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff/appellant failed to substantiate his contention that he suffered loss due to non mention of red poly in the invoice and that he could not sell the said unaccounted item. On the contrary, PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that though he faced difficulty in selling red poly which he lifted, due to want of invoice, but ultimately he sold the said item.

12. We are also not impressed with the argument that the security deposit was illegally forfeited by the defendant no. 1. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff lifted 50 tons 610 kgs of scrap material out of 185 tons. After lifting part of the material plaintiff requested the defendant no. 1 for extending the date for lifting the remaining material as is evident from his letter dated 16th June, 1997 (exhibit 5). Despite extension of date plaintiff failed to lift the material within the stipulated period which prompted the defendant no. 1 to invoke the forfeiture clause embodied in the acceptance letter (exhibit 1(b)).

The relevant clause (iv) of the aforesaid document reads as follows:

'iv) That you are to keep in deposit with the Company an interest free sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty Thousand) only by Bank draft in the name and style of ‘Birla Tyres-Prop. Kesoram Industries Limited’ within ten days from the date of acceptance of this letter as and by way of security deposit. Such security deposit will be adjusted at the end of complete lifting of the materials. PROVIDED HOWEVER that at the time of each lifting of the materials necessary. Delivery Order will be issued by the Company to you mentioning threin the quantum of the materials to be lifted and on payment (by bank draft) the price of the materials to be lifted against the aforesaid Delivery Order. It be noted that in case of failure on your part to lift the entire materials within the stipulated period then and in that case the Company will be at liberty to forfeit the aforesaid security deposit including the further security deposit to be paid as hereinafter stated without showing any reasons what-so-ever. Provided further that if the actual quantity of the materials as stated above is found more than what has been stated above, then you are to deposit with the Company such further sum or sums as the Company will decide by way of further security deposit in the manner as stated above.'

The principle enunciated in the decisions reported in AIR 1926 Privy Council 1 and AIR 1981 Calcutta 323 (supra) is that where the contract falls through due to default or breach by the vendee, the seller is entitled to forfeit the earnest money unless there is anything to the contrary in the terms of the contract. The plaintiff cannot in such a situation claim refund of the earnest money. The earnest money is a guarantee for the performance of a contract. If the transaction goes forward, it is a part of the purchase price. If it falls through due to default or breach by the vendee, the earnest money is liable to be forfeited. In the case at hand, in view of the express terms contained in the contract between the parties, forfeiture of the plaintiff’s security deposit was justified since the plaintiff failed to discharge his obligation under the contract by not lifting the material within the period stipulated. In the context of the fact situation of the present case it is pertinent to refer to section 74 of the Indian Contract Act which provides as follows:

'When a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the br

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

each is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or, as the case may be, the penalty stipulated for.' Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act applies not only to cases where the aggrieved party is seeking to receive some amount upon a breach of contract, but also to cases where upon a breach of contract an amount received under the contract is sought to be forfeited. It is evident that the first part of section 74 applies to the facts of this case. In the case at hand there is a specific term in the contract entitling the defendant no. 1 to forfeit the security money in case of failure on the part of the plaintiff to lift the entire material within the stipulated period. In the circumstances stated, forfeiture of the security deposit was justified in terms of the agreement and the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled to refund of the same. 13. For the reasons discussed we are of the firm view that the plaintiff/appellant failed to make out any case for interference with the impugned judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court. 14. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. 16. Lower court records along with a copy of this judgement be sent forthwith to the Trial Court. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of the judgment if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

26-06-2020 For the Respondents: Vibhav Prakash Tripathi, Advocate. For the Respondents: G.A., Subhash Chandra Yadav, Advocate. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-06-2020 Chandra Marbles Mattannur, Rep By Its Properties C.M. Jeeja Versus C.H. Ramachandran & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Sri Dhiren Chandra Borah Versus Smti Pallavi Kalita High Court of Gauhati
17-06-2020 Bhabesh Chandra Biswas @ Bhupesh Biswas Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
01-06-2020 Aditya Birla Money Limited, Rep. By its Head – Legal & Compliance, L.R. Murali Krishnan Versus The National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Investors Services Cell, Kotturpuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Nagen Chandra Das & Others Versus The State of Assam, Rep. by the Comm. And Secy., Deptt. of Urban Development Deptt., Dispur & Others High Court of Gauhati
08-05-2020 Union of India Versus Narayan Chandra Jena & Another Supreme Court of India
04-05-2020 Priyambada Devi Birla & Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
28-04-2020 Ratan Chandra Gogoi & Others Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
20-04-2020 Umesh Chandra Saxena Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-03-2020 Suresh Chandra Das Versus The State of Tripura to be represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Secretariat Complex, West Tripura & Another High Court of Tripura
20-03-2020 K. Palani & Others Versus R. Madana Gopal (Died) Sumathi High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-03-2020 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh Versus Sharad Yadav Supreme Court of India
12-03-2020 Ramesh Chandra Singh & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-03-2020 Chandra Versus State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police Q Branch CID High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Gopal Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-03-2020 Kailash Chandra Agarwal & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
04-03-2020 Phool Chandra Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
04-03-2020 B. Chandra Shekar Versus Kurapati Narenaer High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-02-2020 Ashok Chandra Tamta Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
24-02-2020 Chandra Bhushan Shukla Versus Surmila (Dead) & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-02-2020 Ramchandra Gopal Konde & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-02-2020 Chandra & Others Versus Sri Kakumani Adikesavalu Chetty Charities, Rep. by its Managing Trustees, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 Harish Chandra Singh Versus State of M.P. Through State House Officer, Police Station Ratlam & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
19-02-2020 State Of Uttarakhand Versus Ramesh Chandra Joshi & Another High Court of Uttarakhand
18-02-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited A Government of India Enterprises, Delhi & Others Versus Gopal Prasad Jaiswal High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-02-2020 State of Rajasthan Versus Ram Gopal Jaga High Court of Rajasthan
13-02-2020 Chandra Shekhar Azad Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
10-02-2020 Gopal Das & Others Versus The State of Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura
07-02-2020 Oil And Natural Gas Corporation V/S Krishan Gopal And Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Gopal Chandra Mishra & Others Versus The Chairman, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Dumka & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-02-2020 Rakesh Chandra Savita Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
06-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-02-2020 Vir Singh Versus Chandra Lata & Another High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 Govinda Chandra Tiria Versus Sibaji Charan Panda & Others Supreme Court of India
05-02-2020 Dipak Chandra Dhar, Senior Trackman, Under Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway, Silchar Versus Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-02-2020 Chandra Shekhar Dubey & Others Versus Narendra & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
04-02-2020 Dr. Satish Chandra Versus M/s. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
04-02-2020 S. Pugazhendi, President, Subash Chandra Bose Podhu Nala Sangam, Nagapattinam Versus Dy.Superintending Engineer/Public Information Officer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Highways Department, Madurai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 School Management, St. Xavier Public School Korba Versus Raghuvanshi Chandra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-02-2020 K. Chandra Sekhar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of for the State of Telangana
01-02-2020 Bipul Chandra Das & Another Versus Rakhi Acharjee & Others High Court of Tripura
31-01-2020 Ghat Talab Kaulan Wala Versus Baba Gopal Dass Chela Surti Dass (Dead) By Lr Ram Niwas Supreme Court of India
31-01-2020 Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others Versus Panna Mahesh Chandra Dave & Another Supreme Court of India
31-01-2020 S. Gopal Versus G.R. Bellie & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Ram Gopal Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Pramod Poddar Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-01-2020 Chedde Mahesh Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Another Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
28-01-2020 Biresh Chandra Giri Versus State of Orissa High Court of Orissa
24-01-2020 C. Anwar Ali Versus T. Ramani Gopal Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-01-2020 Arunabh Sinha Versus Panuganti Vijay Chandra Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
23-01-2020 Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Others Versus Sunita Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
23-01-2020 Justice Valluri Seethamahalakshmi Versus Sara Chandra Environ Solutions Pvt Ltd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
22-01-2020 Kumari Kothoori Triveni Versus Ch. Gopal & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
22-01-2020 Ganapathy Versus Chandra High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Gopal Ambadas Gawali High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-01-2020 Somireddy Chandra Mohan Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-01-2020 Chandra Kanta Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
13-01-2020 Prakash Chandra Jain Versus Director, Danish Grih Nir Sanstha MYDT Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
10-01-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus Ganesh Chandra Sahoo Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 Ram Gopal Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
10-01-2020 Dr. Uday Sankar Chatterjee Versus Sankar Chandra Mondal & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
09-01-2020 Chakkarabani & Another Versus Gopal Gounder (deceased) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 Chandra Shekhar Azad Versus Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Assets Recovery Management Branch West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-01-2020 Chakkarabani & Another Versus Gopal Gounder(deceased) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Birat Chandra Dagara Versus Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. High Court of Orissa
07-01-2020 Shanti Chandra Pal & Another Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Gopal Agencies National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose @ Nethaji Versus State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 Union of India Versus Amal Chandra Hore National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-12-2019 Khokan Chandra Jana & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-12-2019 Ram Chandra Versus Sirdari High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
20-12-2019 Gopal Sarkar Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-12-2019 Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Versus Sadhan Chandra Mondal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-12-2019 Shuba Deep Chandra & Others Versus M/s. Aliens Developers Pvt., Limited & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
17-12-2019 Gopal Aggarwal Versus Metro Motors & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-12-2019 Gopal Aggarwal Versus M/s. Metro Motors & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-12-2019 Gopal s/o Ramji Tajne (dead) thr. his legal heirs : & Others Versus Mukund s/o Sampat Khule (Dead) thr. his legal heirs : & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
13-12-2019 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Granites, Rep. by its Managing partner Nakka Chandra Shekar, Warangal Versus M/s Kapil Chits (Kakatiya) Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Warangal District & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
11-12-2019 Sterlite Technologies Limited Rep by Chief Manager K. Sundar & Another Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep by Managing Director, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 Purna Chandra Soren Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-12-2019 M.V. Gopal (died) & Others Versus N. Rajappan High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited Lucknow & Another Versus Chandra Bhan Singh (Dead) & Others Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 Satish Chandra Adhikary & Others V/S The Union of India, Through General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-12-2019 Gopal Chandra Bairagi Versus Panchanan Mondal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-12-2019 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mahalingapuram, Pollachi Versus Rohit Kumar Chandra & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-11-2019 Chumman Lal Sahu & Another Versus Gopal Ji Singh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
29-11-2019 Panchu Mondal @ Panchu Gopal Mondal Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-11-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Versus Ashok Kumar Kuthiala Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
26-11-2019 Bijay Chandra Das Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Government of India, Central Public Works Departments (CPWD), New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
26-11-2019 Sushil Chandra Bag Versus M/s. Capable Construction Rep. by its prop., Goutam Halder West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-11-2019 The Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Vellore District Versus Chandra Sekar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 Chandra & Another Versus K. Mathiazhagan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 G. Chandra Shekhar Versus State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department High Court of Karnataka
15-11-2019 Santosh Chaturvedi Versus Kailash Chandra & Another Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 The Management of M/s. Birla Te Versus Chunni Lal High Court of Delhi
14-11-2019 Soma Barman Nee Datta Versus Sunil Chandra Podder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-11-2019 M/s. Sree Ramcides Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, R. Gopal Versus The Additional Director General, Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2019 Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal Supreme Court of India
08-11-2019 Gopal Metal Containers (P) Ltd., Guindy Industrial Estate, Presently at Royapuram, Represented by its Director G. Sekar Versus The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box