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



Hindustan Unilever Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act v/s The Controller of Patents & Designs Intellectual Property Building G.S.T. Road, Guindy & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED [Active] CIN = L15140MH1933PLC002030

Company & Directors' Information:- PROPERTY CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1943PTC011361

Company & Directors' Information:- GST PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104MH2002PTC136410

    M.P.No. 2 of 2014 In OA 13 of 2010/PT/CH

    Decided On, 04 April 2014

    At, Intellectual Property Appellate Board

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA
    By, CHAIRMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. D.P.S. PARMAR
    By, TECHNICAL MEMBER (PATENTS)

    For the Appellant: P.S. Raman, Senior Advocate, S. Majumdar, Dominc Alwaris, Advocate. For the Respondents: K. Duraiswamy, Sr. Advocate, M.K. Chakraborty, N. Ramasamy, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(CIRCUIT SITTING AT MUMBAI)

ORDER (No.43 of 2014)

K.N. Basha, Chairman

The petitioner who is the respondent No.3 in the appeal preferred this Miscellaneous Petition raising a preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the appeal preferred by the appellant/respondent No.3 herein.

2. It is seen that at the time of preferring the appeal this Board granted an order of stay in Miscellaneous Petitioner No.70/2010 seeking for the relief of stay and in Miscellaneous Petition No.71/2010 seeking for the relief of urgent hearing of the matter on 07.12.2011. This Board observed in that order that the impugned order was stayed by the order dated 07.12.2011 in the absence of the respondent who in spite of knowing that the date of hearing has chosen not to be present before the Board. Thereafter, the respondent No.3/petitioner herein preferred a Miscellaneous Petition No.46/2012 for vacating the stay order dated 07.12.2011 and the said petition is pending as on date. Meanwhile, the Respondent No.3/Petitioner preferred this Miscellaneous Petition No.2/2014 raising a preliminary objection of maintainability of the appeal.

3. Mr. K. Duraisami, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent No.3 would vehemently contend that the appeal preferred by the appellant itself is not maintainable on the ground of non compliance of Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and on the ground of violation of mandatory provision of Rules 55A, 57, 129 and 137 of the Patent Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as Rules).

4. It is contended that as per provision of the Section 25(2) of the Act, the appellant has filed the post grant opposition as per Form No.7 without written statement and they have filed a written statement subsequently on 17.11.2005 which is in violation of Rule 57 as Form No.7 and the written statement along with the evidence must be filed by the opponent together and copies to be sent to the Patentee simultaneously. It is contended that in view of violation of Rule 57 the post grant opposition is liable to be dismissed which was not done by the Patent Office. The learned senior counsel would point out that the said lapse was admitted by the appellant as they have stated in their letter dated 31.03.2006 sent through their counsel to the Controller of Patents that the written statement and evidence ought to have accompanied the notice of opposition as per provision under Rule 57 and therefore there has been a procedural irregularity. It is contended that similar statement was made by the appellant in the petition filed under Rule 137 praying for condoning the irregularity of procedure by exercising the discretionary powers.

5. The learned senior counsel would contend that the Assistant Controller passed an ex-parte order without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/respondent No.3 and condoned the irregularity of procedure as contemplated under Rule 57. The learned senior counsel would contend as per provision under Rule 137, the Controller may condone the irregularity in the procedure without detriment to the interest of any person and the petitioner being the patentee he would have been afforded opportunity to be heard before passing the order condoning the irregularity of procedure and regularizing the same as per order dated 21.04.2006.

6. The learned senior counsel would also place reliance on the provision under Rule 129 contemplating the opportunity of hearing to the patentee before exercising any discretionary power under the Act or the Rules which would affect the interest of the patent adversely. Therefore, it is contended that a non compliance of the said mandatory provisions in the instant case renders the entire post grant proceedings as vitiated.

7. The learned senior counsel would also point out that in a similar matter one Mr. K. Subramaniam of Coimbatore filed a post grant opposition with Form-7 without the written statement and evidence and without serving the same simultaneously to the patentee and the very same learned counsel on record appearing in this matter for appellant by writing letters dated 16.02.2009 and 17.02.2009 stating that the mandatory procedure as per Rule 57 was not complied and as such the Controller was requested not to consider the notice of opposition filed by the opponent and on that basis Assistant Controller of Patents as per order dated 29.04.2009 decline to take the notice of opposition on record in view of irregularity of the procedure. Therefore the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned counsel for the appellant now cannot take a different stand and as such the non-compliance of the mandatory provision as per Rule 57 vitiates the entire post grant proceedings.

8. The learned senior counsel in support of his contentions would place reliance on the following citations.

a) (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 422 – Babu Verghese and Others Vs. Bar Council of Kerala and others

b) 1969 (1) Supreme Court Cases 509 – State of Gujarat Vs. Shantilal Mangaldas and Others

c) (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 627 – Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and others.

d) (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 289 – M.J. Sivani and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others

9. Per contra Mr. P.S. Raman, the learned senior counsel would strenuously contend that the present miscellaneous petition is baseless and not maintainable and put forward the following contentions.

a) It is an appeal in disguise as the said miscellaneous petition seeks to impugne the order of the Controller of Patents dated 21.04.2006 which is not an order u/s 25(4) of the Act.

b) The order dated 21.04.2006 allowing the petition under Rule 137 condoning the irregularity of the procedure as per Rule 137 filed by the appellant cannot and ought not to be construed as having merged with order dated 20.01.2010 passed u/s 25(4) of the Act and provision u/s 117-A expressly provides for an appeal from an order u/s 25(4) and not other order passed u/s 25.

c) The present miscellaneous petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21.04.2006 only in the year 2014 and it is claimed by the petitioner that they came to know about allowing petition under Rule 137 condoning the irregularity of the procedure contemplated under Rule 57 only after receiving the impugned order in this appeal and such claim is false. The petitioner had the knowledge of passing order dated 21.04.2006 regularising the irregularity of the procedure as per provision u/s 137 even on receipt of the notice in the Writ Petition No.28697 of 2006 filed by the appellant.

d) The petitioner has not raised the preliminary objection before the Controller and there is no explanation in such lapse.

e) The petitioner has not raised the preliminary objection even after granting the relief of stay as per the order dated 07.12.2011 and the reasons stated in the present miscellaneous petition for the delay to the effect that the petitioner was able to discover the legal position and interpretation of Rule 57 only from the similar matter of Mr. K. Subramainam raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is unacceptable.

f) In the alleged similar case that is in the matter of Mr. K. Subramaniam no petition filed under Rule 137 to condone the procedural irregularity and as such the said case cannot be equated with the present case.

g) The petitioner is not able to state as to how he has been prejudiced in view of the order dated 21.04.2006 regularising and condoning the procedural irregularity in respect of the provision under Rule 57 as per Rule 137.

h) The Controller by order dated 21.04.2006 by Condoning the procedural irregularity issued notice to the petitioner/3rd respondent requiring them to file a reply within two months from the date of service of the order dated 21.04.2006 presumably on 27.04.2006 and in view of the non filing of any reply and evidence as per provision under Rule 58(1) within stipulated time of two months from the date of service of the order dated 21.04.2006 the patent shall be deemed to have been abandoned as per rule 58(2).

i) This Board granted an order of stay prima facie holding that the ground of deemed revocation was prima facie accepted as per the order dated 07.12.2011. The petitioner was well aware about the order dated 21.04.2006 as the same was referred in the stay order but the petitioner has not raised the present point even in the vacate stay petition filed in miscellaneous petition No.46 of 2012. Therefore, this miscellaneous petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and as baseless and devoid of merits.

10. The learned senior counsel would place reliance on the following decisions.

a) 2003 2 MLG 305 - Madras High Court – K. Natarajan Vs. P.K. Rajasekaran

b) IPAB Order No.232 of 2012 dated 03.10.2012 - M.P. No.95/2012 in OA/34/2012/PT/CH & OA/34/2012/PT/CH – Andrews Ponnuraj Vairamani Vs. The Controller of Patents, Chennai

11. We have given our careful and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned order in the appeal and the order dated 21.04.2006.

12. The petitioner who is the 3rd respondent in the appeal and the patentee who has succeeded in the post grant opposition as per the impugned order supressingly and curiously filed this petition raising preliminary objection questioning the very maintainability of the appeal on the sole ground that the order dated 21.04.2006 condoning and regularizing procedural irregularity as per provision under Rule 137 without notice to them and in violation of the principles of natural justice

13. The crux of the question involved in this matter is whether Rule 57 is violated on the ground that notice of opposition not accompanied with the written statement along with the evidence and whether the power under the Rule 137 was exercised in violation of the principles of natural justice.

14. In order to consider the above said questions, it is relevant to refer the following provisions of the Act and Rules.

The Patents Act, 1970

25. Opposition to the Patent

25 (2) – At any time after the grant of patent but before the expiry of a period of one year from the date of publication of grant of a patent, any person interested may give notice of opposition to the Controller in the prescribed manner on any of the following grounds, namely:-

(a) …..

25 (3)(a) – Where any such notice of opposition is duly given under sub-section (2), the Controller shall notify the patentee

The Patents Rules, 2003

55A. Filing of notice of opposition. - The notice of opposition to be given under sub section (2) of the Section 25 shall be made in Form 7 and sent to the Controller in duplicate at the appropriate office.

57. Filing of written statement of opposition and evidence.- The opponent shall send a written statement in duplicate setting out the nature of the opponent’s interest, the facts upon which he bases his case and relief which he seeks and evidence, if any, along with notice of opposition and shall deliver to the patentee a copy of the statement and the evidence, if any.

129. Exercise of discretionary power by the Controller.- Before exercising any discretionary power under the Act or these rules which is likely to affect an applicant for a patent or a party to a proceeding adversely, the Controller shall give such applicant or party, a hearing, after giving him or them, ten days notice of such hearing ordinarily.

137. Powers of Controller generally.- Any document for the amendment of which no special provision is made in the Act may be amended and any irregularity in procedure which in the opinion of the Controller may be obviated without detriment to the interests of any person, may be corrected if the Controller thinks fit and upon such terms as he may direct.

15. The reading of the above said provisions makes it abundantly clear that as per provision u/s 25(2) notice of opposition to the patent may be given at the post grant stage within a period of one year from the date of publication of grant of a patent.

16. As per provision 25(3) (a) the Controller shall notify the patentee after the notice of opposition was duly given under sub section (2) 25.

17. As per Rule 55A, the notice of opposition would be given as per Section 25(2) in Form-7 to the Controller in duplicate.

18. Rule 57 contemplates the opponent shall sent a written statement in duplicate with evidence if any along with the notice of opposition and the patentee shall be delivered with the copy of the statement and the evidence if any.

19. As far as the case on hand is concerned, it is seen that the appellant having realized that the written statement and evidence have not been accompanied with the notice of opposition as per provision Rule 57 and therefore there has been the procedural irregularity and accordingly they have filed a petition under Rule 137 to regularize the irregularity of the procedure by paying a prescribed fee of Rs.4000/-. The said fact is evident from the letter of the counsel for the appellant dated 31.03.2006 and on the same day they have also preferred the petition under Rule 137. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs as per the order dated 21.04.2006, condoned the procedural irregularity and as per provision u/s 25(3)(a) the notice of opposition was sent to the patentee calling upon petitioner/3rd respondent herein to file the reply statement and evidence, if any, within two months from the date of despatch of the notice.

20. The material is produced before this Bench reveals that the notice of opposition was duly served along with the written statement and evidence to the petitioner/3rd respondent herein. It is not the case of the petitioner/3rd respondent that they have been served only notice of opposition without written statement and evidence. The petitioner/3rd respondent has not expressed any grievance that they have not been duly served with the notice of opposition along with written statement and evidence. The fact remains that the Controller have sent the notice of opposition as contemplated u/s 25(3)(a) of the Act as per the order dated 21.04.2006 after condoning the procedural irregularity of procedure under Rule 57 as per provision under Rule 137 and the Controller sought for the reply statement and evidence if any from the patentee within two months from the date of despatch of the notice. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that there is no violation of Rule 57 and the procedural irregularity have been cured as per the order dated 21.04.2006 passed by the Controller by allowing the petition under Rule 137.

21. The next question falls for our consideration is whether the Controller exercises his power under Rule 137 in violation of the principles of natural justice.

22. As we have already pointed out that the Controller by exercising his power under Rule 137 has condoned the procedural irregularity on the basis of the petition filed by the appellant. The reading of the provision under Rule 137 has incorporated earlier in this order makes it crystal clear that the Controller is vested with the power to eliminate any procedural irregularity and accordingly he as obviated the procedural irregularity of the procedure contemplated under Rule 57 as per order dated 21.04.2006. The provision under Rule 137 empowers the Controller to exercise such power without detrimental to the interest of any person.

23. As far as the instant case is concerned, the petitioner/3rd respondent has not whispered a word in the affidavit filed for raising preliminary objection stating that the order of the Controller dated 21.04.2006 was passed detrimental to the interest of the petitioner/3rd respondent.

24. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner/3rd respondent also place reliance on the provision under Rule 129 contemplating opportunity to be given to the applicant for a patent or a party to a proceeding which would likely to affect adversely against the petitioner/3rd respondent. By no stretch of imagination it could be stated that the interest of the petitioner/3rd respondent has been adversely affected by curing the procedural irregularity of provision under Rule 57 as per provision under Rule 137 by passing an order dated 21.04.2006 by the Controller.

25. The petitioner made a feeble attempt to place reliance in the matter of one Mr. K. Subramaniam of Coimbatore. In the said case, a post grant opposition was filed with Form-7 and in the said case, the counsel on record, the appellant herein has raised the objection that Form-7 was not filed and served on the patentee with the written statement and evidence. It is seen that the Controller has been declined to take the notice of opposition on record on the ground of procedural irregularity as per the order dated 29.04.2009 in respect of patent No.223959 in the matter of K. Subramaniam. In the said case, the opponent has not filed any petition under Rule 137 to cure the irregularity of the procedure. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the appellant preferred a petition as per Rule 137 and prayed for curing the irregularity of the procedure contemplated under Rule 57. Therefore, the above said case of Mr. K. Subramaniam cannot be equated with the present case as in the instant case, notice of opposition was duly served on the patentee/petitioner/3rd respondent along with the written statement and evidence.

26. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the notice of opposition was filed on 04.10.2005 and realizing the procedural irregularity the appellant filed the written statement and evidence with the Controller by simultaneously serving copies to the petitioner/3rd respondent with the Form-7 on 17.11.2005 and the Controller condoned and cured the procedural irregularity as per order dated 21.04.2006. Therefore, the present case stands entirely on a different footing than the case relied by the petitioner in the matter of one Mr. K. Subramaniam.

27. In view of the aforesaid findings, we have no hesitation to hold that the Controller has not violated the principles of natural justice while exercising his discretionary power under Rule 137.

28. The yet another contention of the petitioner is that they have no knowledge about the passing of the order dated 21.04.2006 till they receive the impugned order in this appeal dated 20.01.2010. We are unable to countenance such contention for the simple reasons that the petitioner is well aware about the order of the Controller dated 21.04.2006 as the same was despatch to them and they have been called upon to sent a reply and evidence if any within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the notice. The appellant also sent a letter dated 31.10.2009 to the Controller stating about the withdrawal of the Writ Petition No.28697 of 2006 as per the order of Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 14.09.2009 and sought for fixing early date of hearing by marking a copy to the petitioner/3rd respondent and along with the said letter enclosed Annexure-1 facts of the case narrating about passing of the order dated 21.04.2006. Therefore, the petitioner is well aware about passing of the order dated 21.04.2006 even before passing the impugned order in this appeal.

29 The decisions relied by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the instant case in view of our earlier findings.

30. We are able to see much force in the contention of Mr. P.S. Raman, learned senior counsel for the appellant to the effect that this miscellaneous petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is to be stated that the petitioner has not raised this objection in spite of knowing the order passed on 21

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

.04.2006 as pointed out earlier. It is seen that this Board also granted an order of stay of the impugned order by the order dated 07.12.2011 and in that order this Board specifically stated about the order dated 21.04.2006 wherein the Controller curing the irregularity of the procedure of Rule 57 and calling upon the petitioner/3rd respondent to submit their reply statement and evidence if any within a period of two months from the date of despatch of the said notice. In the said order this Board further held that two months to be calculated from 21.04.2006 and the petitioner/3rd respondent could have sent their reply statement by 21.06.2006 that in the event of default the ground of deemed revocation as per provision under Rule 58(2) is to be made out. This Board in the said stay order dated 07.12.2011 held that a prima facie case has been made out for deemed revocation. Though the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition No.46/2012 to vacate the stay has not raised the present ground of preliminary objection. It is to be reiterated that the petitioner has neither raised the present preliminary objection before the Controller in spite of knowing the order dated 21.04.2006 nor raised the said point in the vacate stay petition in M.P. No.46/2012. Thereafter, suddenly filed the present petition only in the year 2014 and there is absolutely no explanation for such inordinate delay and therefore the petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 31. Last but not least, we are also constrained to state that the order dated 21.04.2006 passed by the Controller curing irregularity of procedure of rule 57 as per rule 137 cannot and ought not to be construed as having merged with the impugned order dated 20.01.2010 passed u/s 25(4) of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant only an order u/s 25(4) is appealable as per provision u/s 117A of the Act and not other order passed u/s 25 of the Act. The present miscellaneous petition is nothing but an appeal in disguise and as such the same is liable to be dismissed as the order dated 21.04.2006 is not an appealable order. 32. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Miscellaneous Petition is hereby dismissed as devoid of merits.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

17-08-2020 M/s. Barnala Builders & Property Consultants Through Its Accounts Head, Zirakpur Versus Capt. U.C. Arora National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 P.P. Suresh Kumar, Managing Director, Kerala Communications Cable Ltd., Kochi & Another Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
05-08-2020 Doosan Infracore India Private Limited, Rep., by N. Krishnakumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissinerate, Chennai Versus M/s. Saksoft Ltd., Perungudi, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-07-2020 Subhash Joshi & Another Versus Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
26-06-2020 U. Manikandan, Mani Poultry Farm, Annamooli, Palakkad Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Special Circle, Palakkad & Another High Court of Kerala
21-05-2020 Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (Ipaa) & Another Versus The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Another High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 The Federal Agency for State Property Management of the Russian Federation (ROSIMUSHCESTVO) Versus Saraf Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
22-04-2020 Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. Versus Hindustan Unilever Ltd. High Court of Delhi
22-04-2020 Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd V/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd High Court of Delhi
06-04-2020 Khutala Property Consortium (PTY) Ltd Versus Mtubatuba Municipality Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
18-03-2020 Hindustan Unilever Ltd V/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-03-2020 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer, Chennai V/S The Glovis India Private Limited, F-98, Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Sanjay Dattu Patil High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-02-2020 Sitabai Shantaram Talawnekar & Others Versus Custodian of Evacuee Property & Others Supreme Court of India
21-02-2020 M/s. Hwashin Automative India Pvt. Ltd., Sriperumbudur Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Poonamallee Division, (Not known as the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Irungattukottai Division), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 M/s. Carenow Medical Prviate Limited, Rep. by its Director & the auth. Rep.T.Rajkumar Versus Rajesh Sodhi, The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 VGN Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as VGN Property Developers Pvt. Ltd.), Represented by its Authorised Signatory A. Rangappan Versus The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 M/s. Phoenix Rubbers, Palakkad, Represented By Sakkeer Hussain, Managing Partner Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, State GST Department, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
03-02-2020 Sutherland Mortgage Services INC, Cochin, Represented by Achutarama Gupta Nesthala Vizupu, Authorized Signatory, V.K. Gupta Versus The Principal Commissioner, Office of The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central GST & Central Excise, Kochi Commissionerate & Others High Court of Kerala
21-01-2020 M/s. Samrajyaa and Company, Represented by its Partner N. Ranganayaki Versus Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-01-2020 Jumbo World Holdings Limited, British Virgin Islands & Another Versus Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore, Rep. by its Director, K.Y. Gobikrishnan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 ASL Builders Private Limited V/S Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Jamshedpur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
06-01-2020 Asutosh & Another Versus Commercial Taxes Department (GST) & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
26-11-2019 Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-11-2019 BGR Energy Systems Limited, Represented by its Assistant Vice President Accounts, Chennai Versus The Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nungambakkam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-10-2019 Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Rahul Shaw High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-09-2019 M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Tea Factory Manager Puducherry Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Puducherry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2019 Barnala Builders & Property Consultants Versus Anirudh Sood National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-09-2019 Initiating Officer, Acit Benami Prohibition Versus Appellate Tribunal Under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 & Others High Court of Delhi
20-08-2019 M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies (Pvt.) Ltd., Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai, Rep. by Authorised Signatory, P. Sirajudeen Versus Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2019 Embassy Property Developments Private Limited (formerly Dynasty Developers Private Limited), Bengalore & Others Versus SNP Ventures LLP, Rrepresented by its General Manager C.P. Subash & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2019 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate Versus Intimate Fashions India (P) Ltd., Guduvancherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-08-2019 K. Dalpat Singh Versus Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Rep.by Deputy Registrar, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2019 M/s. Premier Cotton Textiles, represented by its Senior Manager, S. Vaidyanathan, Poolankinar Post, Udumalpet Versus The Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Coimbatore Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2019 Alkem Laboratories Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST And Central Excise, Daman High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-07-2019 M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., (Formerly ‘M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd.'), Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
20-06-2019 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Now known as The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichirapalli Versus M/s. Madras Cements Ltd., Ariyalur High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-06-2019 S.I. Property Kerala Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director, Thiruvananthapuram Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
19-06-2019 M/s. Sowmiya Spinners (P) Ltd., Coimbatore Versus The Superintendent, Office of the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore District High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2019 Sushmita Saha Versus M/s. Amarpali Property Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
17-05-2019 M/s. Brandavan Food Products (A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956), Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Commissioner (Appeals), Central & State Goods and Service Tax Raipur Commissionerate Central GST Building, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-05-2019 M/s. Rane Brake Lining Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
07-05-2019 M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
16-04-2019 M/s. Vendhar Movies, Represented by its Proprietor S. Madhan, Chennai & Others Versus The Joint Director, O/o. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 M/s. Paripooranam Steel Traders, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-04-2019 M/S. Zentech Off-Shore Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of GST & CE, Chennai South Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
03-04-2019 Milroc Good Earth Property & Developers Ltd. Versus C.C.E &S.T, Goa Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
01-04-2019 S.S. Con-Build Pvt. Ltd. Versus Total Property Maintenance LLP & Others High Court of Delhi
27-03-2019 Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Emami Limited High Court of Delhi
15-03-2019 M/s. Popular Maruthi Painting Works, Chennai Versus The Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-03-2019 M/s. Sri Ram Company Versus Commissioner of GST & CE, Madurai Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
05-03-2019 Shivangi Polysacks Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & GST, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
04-03-2019 Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai & Another Versus M/s. Updater Services P. Ltd. & Another Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
12-02-2019 Vimal Nayan & Others Versus The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Headquarters Preventive Unit, Chennai North Commissionerate, Nungambakkam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2019 Shri Tirupathi Kumar Khemka Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & GST, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2019 P. Prabhakar Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Government of India High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2019 World Class Management Service Versus Commissioner of GST & CE Chennai South Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
11-01-2019 Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Prashant & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
03-01-2019 Prikrithi Foundations Limited, Represented by its Authorised Power of Attorney Agent Heritage Property Development Company Ltd., Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director V. Krishnaprasadh Versus The Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration & Rural Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2018 Kun Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd., Puducherry, Represented by Collin Elson, Sales Manager & Another Versus The Asst. State Tax Officer, Kerala State GST Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
22-11-2018 M/s. TMT. Granites (Pvt) Ltd. Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Director, Tom George Versus The Commissioner, State GST Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
16-11-2018 Mahendra Pratap Dubey Versus Managing Officer, Evacuee Property & Others Supreme Court of India
14-11-2018 Reliance Cable Industries Versus Commissioner of GST (East) Delhi High Court of Delhi
14-11-2018 M/s. Suryadev Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
13-11-2018 Principal Commr. of Central Tax, GST, Delhi Versus Pymen Cable (India) High Court of Delhi
09-11-2018 M/s. SRF Ltd., Manali Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
04-10-2018 City Union Bank Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
12-09-2018 Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Versus M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
10-09-2018 Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Gajender Jain High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-09-2018 Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus Dymos India Automotive Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-09-2018 D.D.R. Property Developers & Builders Private Limited Versus Deepti Integrated Logistic Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2018 Gajanan Property Dealer & Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus State of Orissa & Another High Court of Orissa
23-08-2018 Acit, Central Circle -2 Versus Sree Daksha Property Developers Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
13-08-2018 Usha Mohan & Another Versus Property of Late M.C. Mohan & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
09-08-2018 M/s. Popat & Kotecha Property & Others Versus Ashim Kumar Dey Supreme Court of India
06-08-2018 M/s. Green Vistas Property Development (Private) Ltd., Represented herein by its authorized signatory Vijay Gulechha & Another Versus M/s. Leatherex Tanning Company, Represented by its Managing Partner M.K.M. Kader Meera Sahib & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-08-2018 Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Trilok Sharma High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-08-2018 Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Jaswinder Pal Singh High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-07-2018 Vijay Prestressed Products Pvt. Ltd V/S CCT, Visakhapatnam - G.S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Allahabad
24-07-2018 Andhra Organics Ltd V/S CCT, Visakhapatnam - G.S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
24-07-2018 Maxworth Plywood Pvt. Ltd V/S CCT, Visakhapatnam - G.S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
23-07-2018 Consim Info Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
13-07-2018 M/s. Colliers International (India) Property Services Limited Versus Thanpal Subhaiysh & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-07-2018 Alkraft Thermo Technologies Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
13-07-2018 M/s. Leo Oils & Lubricants Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
13-07-2018 Spark New Zealand Trading Limited Versus Clearspan Property Assets Limited Court of Appeal of New Zealand
13-07-2018 Terex India Pvt. Ltd V/S The Commissioner of G.S.T. & C.E., Salem Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
11-07-2018 Anuradha Sharma V/S Commissioner (Appeals), Customs GST and Central Excise, Lucknow Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
10-07-2018 Siddhi Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
10-07-2018 Siddhi Property Developers Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Mumbai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
10-07-2018 M/s. K. Bit Brave Sourcing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
09-07-2018 Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
09-07-2018 Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
03-07-2018 Sparsha Logistics V/S CCT, Hyderabad G.S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
03-07-2018 Yona Smelters Pvt. Ltd V/S CCT, Visakhapatnam G.S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
02-07-2018 Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Emami Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-07-2018 Wipro Enterprises Ltd V/S The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Tirupati-GST Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Hyderabad
02-07-2018 Kasturi & Sons Ltd V/S Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
28-06-2018 Sentini Ceramica Pvt. Ltd V/S CCT, Guntur GST Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad