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



ITC Limited v/s Vikas Rastogi


Company & Directors' Information:- ITC LIMITED [Active] CIN = L16005WB1910PLC001985

Company & Directors' Information:- VIKAS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1949PTC007334

    CS(COMM). No. 846 of 2017

    Decided On, 20 July 2018

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

    For the Plaintiff: Anil Kher, Senior Advocate, Kunal Kher, Subiya Akbar Warsi, Advocates. For the Defendant: S.S. Gulia, Imran Khan, Prabha Mishra, Advocates.



Judgment Text

I.A. 4608/2018

1. Present application has been filed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC read with Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. It is pertinent to mention that the present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.1,77,35,973.91/-. The prayer clause in the present suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'a) Pass a decree, in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant for Rs. 1,77,35,973.91/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Seven Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Three and Paise Ninety One Only);

b) Award interest on the decreetal amount against the Defendants @ 18% p.a., and direct the Defendant to pay the interest at the said rate from 01.04.2015 till the time the whole of the amount is paid to the Plaintiff;

e) award the costs of the proceedings to the Plaintiff;

d) Pass such other appropriate orders and/or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.'

2. Vide order dated 27th April, 2015, status quo order was passed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to defendant’s immovable property situated in Allahabad. Relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'Consequently, till further orders, the defendant, his agents, representatives, nominees and assigns are restrained from creating any third party interest or parting with the possession of immovable property situated at 78, Beli Road, above Vijaya Bank, near Jagram Chauraha, New katra, Allahabad-211002, Uttar Pradesh.'

3. Since despite service, the defendant failed to file a written statement, the defendant’s right to file written statement was closed vide order dated 3rd February, 2017.

4. The present application being I.A No.4608/2018 was filed on 6th April, 2018.

5. On 9th July, 2018, the learned counsel for the defendant prayed for an adjournment on the ground that he wanted to file an appeal challenging the order dated 3rd February, 2017. However, the request for adjournment was declined as despite passage of more than one and a half years no steps had been taken by the defendant to get its appeal listed.

6. The contentions and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff are as under:-

i. The plaintiff is a leading business company having business interests in various fields including lifestyle and retail business of branded apparels and other accessories.

ii. The defendant is engaged in the business of distribution of garments and other products.

iii. The defendant approached the plaintiff for being appointed as a distributor for distributing plaintiff’s branded apparels. Vide mutual agreement dated 26th September, 2003, arrived between the parties, the defendant was appointed as one of plaintiff’s distributors. The agreement was initially for a period of two years. It was extended from time to time.

iv. The defendant in accordance with the agreements started placing orders for goods on the plaintiff, which were duly supplied by the plaintiff and invoices/bills were raised on the defendant. The defendant made an on account payment from time to time.

v. However, the defendant failed to make payment against the entire supplies and became irregular in making the due payment to the plaintiff and thus committed a breach of the agreement. Further some of the cheques issued by the defendant to the plaintiff were dishonored.

vi. The defendant vide letter dated 16th November, 2011 admitted and acknowledged that a sum of Rs.1,41,61,246.50/- was due and payable to the plaintiff on 31st October, 2011.

vii. The defendant is also liable to pay VAT due on such purchase to the plaintiff as on 31st October, 2011.

viii. The plaintiff on 28th August, 2012, asked the defendant to make payment of the amount due towards unreturned stocks/goods.

ix. The distribution agreement between the parties finally expired on 25th September, 2013 and was not renewed any further.

x. Further on various occasions during the period November, 2011 to January 2014, the plaintiff gave credit/adjustments to the defendants on account of sales returns and/or by accepting the claims of the defendant.

xi. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery on 24th April, 2015.

7. The defendant during the course of the hearing handed over a copy of his reply to I.A 4608/2018 on 6th July, 2018, stating that the suit was barred by limitation as the defendant’s acknowledgement was dated 16th November, 2011, though the suit had been filed on 24th April, 2015.

8. Learned counsel for defendant further contended that the following claims of the defendant’s had not been cleared by the plaintiff

A. Reimbursement of the gift vouchers = Rs. 7,29,270/-

B. Payment of the margin differences of the Wills Lifestyle branded apparel to be paid to different parties who were working under the distributorship of the defendant. = Rs. 64,77,338/-

9. This Court while dealing with an application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC in CS(OS) 873/2015 Samsung Electronics Company Limited &Anr. Vs. Mohammed Zaheeer Trading As M/s. Gujarat Mobiles &Ors. has culled out the relevant law as under:-

'10. The Supreme Court in C.N. Ramappa Gowda Vs. C.C. Chandregowda, (2012) 5 SCC 265 has interpreted the Order VIII Rule 10 CPC as under:-

"25. We find sufficient assistance from the apt observations of this Court extracted hereinabove which has held that the effect [Ed.: It would seem that it is the purpose of the procedure contemplated under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC upon non-filing of the written statement to expedite the trial and not penalise the defendant.] of non-filing of the written statement and proceeding to try the suit is clearly to expedite the disposal of the suit and is not penal in nature wherein the defendant has to be penalised for non-filing of the written statement by trying the suit in a mechanical manner by passing a decree. We wish to reiterate that in a case where written statement has not been filed, the court should be a little more cautious in proceeding under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and before passing a judgment, it must ensure that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment and decree could not possibly be passed without requiring him to prove the facts pleaded in the plaint.

26. It is only when the court for recorded reasons is fully satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved at the instance of the plaintiff in view of the deemed admission by the defendant, the court can conveniently pass a judgment and decree against the defendant who has not filed the written statement. But, if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case arising from the plaint itself giving rise to two versions, it would not be safe for the court to record an ex parte judgment without directing the plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. In that event, the ex parte judgment although may appear to have decided the suit expeditiously, it ultimately gives rise to several layers of appeal after appeal which ultimately compounds the delay in finally disposing of the suit giving rise to multiplicity of proceedings which hardly promotes the cause of speedy trial."

11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Umesh Gupta and Ors., 235 (2016) DLT 354 has held as under:-

"11. Order VIII Rule 10 has been inserted by the legislature to expedite the process of justice. The courts can invoke its provisions to curb dilatory tactic, often resorted to by defendants, by not filing the written statement by pronouncing judgment against it. At the same time, the courts must be cautious and judge the contents of the plaint and documents on record as being of an unimpeachable character, not requiring any evidence to be led to prove its contents.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

28. The present suit is also a commercial suit within the definition of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 and it was the clear intention of the legislature that such cases should be decided expeditiously and should not be allowed to linger on. Accordingly, if the defendant fails to pursue his case or does so in a lackadaisical manner by not filing his written statement, the courts should invoke the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 to decree such cases."

12. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., 2013 III AD (Delhi) 176 has held as under:-

"4. I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination-in chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record........."

10. In the present case, the plaintiff has placed on record the letter of the defendant dated 16th November, 2011, copy of dishonor memo showing dishonor of defendant’s cheque dated 8th August, 2011, copy of consignment receipts, copy of letters sent by the defendant to the plaintiff along with tax calculationsfor the year 2010 and 2011. The acknowledgement letter of the defendant dated 16th November, 2011 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'To,

M/s. Vikas International,

353/1, Madhav Kunj,

Ram Mohan Plaza,

Near Katra Market,

Allahabad -2.

Date: 16.11.2011

Sub: Balance Confirmation of receivable balance

Dear Sir,

As per our books of accounts, an amount Rs.1,41,61,246.50 at BSP (Rupees One Crore Forty One Lacs Sixty One Thousand Two Hundred Forty Six and paise Fifty Only) is receivable from you as on 31.10.2011. Please confirm the above balance by signing in the space specified below.

Please note that in case we do not get any reply within 7 days of this letter, the above balance would be deemed to be correct.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

ITC LIMITED

Sd/-

Sandeep Verma

I hereby confirm the above balance subject to adjustment of pending claims.

For

Sd/-

Authorised Signatory

Seal & Signature'

(emphasis supplied)

11. It is pertinent to mention that it is the plaintiff’s case that it gave credit/adjustment to the defendant on account of sales returns from November, 2011 to January, 2014, after the date of acknowledgement.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

/> 12. In any event, since agreement between the parties expired on 25th September, 2013 and present suit was filed within three years therefrom, this Court is of the view that the present suit is within the period of limitation. 13. Further, the defences taken by the defendant in his reply regarding non-reimbursement of gift vouchers and payment of margin differences by the plaintiff under the Distributorship agreement cannot be taken into account as in the absence of a written statement, there is no foundation for the said defences. 14. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the defendant has no defence and it has not paid the plaintiff for the goods supplied by it under the agreement dated 26th September, 2003. 15. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendantfor Rs.1,77,35,973.91/- along with pendent lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. The plaintiff is also held entitled to actual costs of litigation including lawyer’s fees. The plaintiff is given liberty to place on record the exact costs incurred by it in adjudication of the present suit. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

06-05-2020 CLP India Private Limited Versus Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-03-2020 U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Another Versus Mohan Swaroop Saxena National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-03-2020 Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Proprietor of M/s. Elegant Constructions Versus State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-02-2020 M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions (P) Ltd. Dwaraka, New Delhi, Registered Office Bhatinda, Punjab, Represented by Its Director, Vikas Mehta Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
13-02-2020 Vikas Panchayat, Gram Boheda Through Sarpanch, Rajasthan Versus Badri Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2020 BVSR-KVR (Joint Ventures) Versus Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. High Court of Delhi
03-02-2020 Vikas Vidyalaya, Ranchi Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
29-01-2020 Vikas Versus State (NCT) of Delhi High Court of Delhi
18-12-2019 M/s. G-Tech Stone Limited, Alwarpet & Another Versus BFIL Finance Limited, Mumbai, (formerly known was ITC Bhadrachalam Finance and Investment Limited, and since amalgamated with Russel Credit Limited) High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-12-2019 Vikas Luthra Versus Unitech Limited & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
06-12-2019 Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited Lucknow & Another Versus Chandra Bhan Singh (Dead) & Others Supreme Court of India
06-12-2019 The Managing Trustee, Sharada Vikas Trust, Banglore & Another Versus P. Raghukumar Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-11-2019 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Versus Sub-Postmaster & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-11-2019 Shalini Tripathi Versus U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-10-2019 M/s. Brijwasi Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Vikas Jain High Court of Delhi
03-10-2019 The Divisional Chief Executive, Tobacco Division, M/s.Itc Ltd, Kolkatha Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
23-09-2019 Gram Vikas Education Society, Through its Secretary Versus University Grants Commission, Through its Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
18-09-2019 ITC Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata IV Supreme Court of India
03-09-2019 Vikas & Others Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
09-08-2019 Wainganga Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha Through President B.B. Karanjekar & Others Versus Ku. Jaya & Others Supreme Court of India
02-08-2019 Vikas Kasliwal Versus Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd & Another Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
29-07-2019 Rajendra Versus Vikas & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
24-07-2019 Vikas Gopi Bhagat Versus Shivdas Pednekar & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
24-07-2019 Vikas Gopi Bhagat V/S Shivdas Pednekar and Others. High Court of Bombay Goa Bench
17-07-2019 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti & Another Versus M/s. Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mill Ltd. & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
15-07-2019 Store One Retail India Ltd. (Now known as Soril Infra Resources Ltd.) Versus I.T.C. Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-07-2019 Faisal Versus Vikas Chacko High Court of Kerala
12-07-2019 Faisal Versus Vikas Chacko High Court of Kerala
11-07-2019 U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow Throu. Chairman & Others Versus Harphool Singh High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
08-07-2019 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary to The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others Versus K. Vikas High Court of Kerala
19-06-2019 Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sdan. Ina. New Delhi Versus Shobhit Gupta National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2019 Sangita & Others Versus Vikas Pramod Kale & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-05-2019 Ambika Vikas Udyog Versus Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Delhi Zonal Unit & Another High Court of Delhi
29-05-2019 Housing Commissioner UP Avas Vikas Parishad & Others Versus Shiv Charan Sagar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-05-2019 Vikas Nissar Ganai Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
23-05-2019 Vikas Jishtu Versus Sumant Gautam & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
17-05-2019 Vikas Bhutani Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
09-05-2019 Khetri Vikas Samiti Versus Director College Education, Government of Rajasthan & Others Supreme Court of India
04-04-2019 ITC Limited Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
12-03-2019 S. P. Singla Constructions Private Limited & Another Versus Rail Vikas Nigam Limited High Court of Delhi
12-03-2019 Salimbi Mubarak Tamboli Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Gram Vikas Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
06-03-2019 Sapna Rawat Versus Vikas Dau High Court of Chhattisgarh
26-02-2019 U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Versus Ganga Saran (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Others Supreme Court of India
25-02-2019 Shri Revansiddeshwar Pattan Sahakari Bank Niyamit Versus Taluka Tokrekoli (Ambiga Samaji C Vikas Sangh Indi) (Earlier Gangamath Sangha) & Another Supreme Court of India
22-02-2019 Fisheries Director, Vikas Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus S. Salveena Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
20-02-2019 Vikas Sureshrao Waghmare Versus The Principal District & Sessions Judge, And Disciplinary Authority, Ahmednagar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-02-2019 Tea Board, India Versus ITC. Limited High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
28-01-2019 T.G. Baburaj Versus Vikas Atmaram Khare & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-01-2019 Ekant Baruta @ Vikas Baruta Versus Rakesh Baruta & Others High Court of Delhi
15-01-2019 10 B Vikas Samiti & Another Versus Pawan Kumar Goyal & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
09-01-2019 Vikas Garg Versus Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-01-2019 Vikas Khurana Versus Preeti Khurana High Court of Delhi
07-01-2019 State of Rajasthan & Others Versus Gram Vikas Samiti, Shivdaspura Supreme Court of India
31-12-2018 MBVSR KVR (JV), Rep. by it authorized signatory, B. Srinivasul Reddy, Hyderabad Versus Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Chief Project Manager High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-12-2018 Chhattisgarh Hastshilp Vikas Board Through Its Chairman, Chhattisgarh & Another Versus Dilip Hedau & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-12-2018 Suresh Chandra Versus U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Others Supreme Court of India
16-11-2018 Samekit Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lucknow
03-11-2018 Kuldeep Singh Versus Vikas Gupta High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
25-09-2018 Vikas Kapur Versus M/s. Unitech Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-09-2018 Vikas Versus State Bank of India Life Insurance Co Ltd. & Others Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
05-09-2018 M/s. Himadri Steel Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited High Court of Jharkhand
30-08-2018 Unity-Triveni-BCPL (JV) Versus Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. High Court of Delhi
27-08-2018 Vikas Versus Kailas & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
24-08-2018 ITC. Limited Versus JP Morgan Mutual Fund India Private Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-07-2018 Karuna Jaiswal Versus State of U.P. Through Secy Mahila Evambal Vikas High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-07-2018 State of Bihar & Others Versus Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti Supreme Court of India
26-07-2018 ITC Limited, Rep by its Constituted Attorney, Nripendranath Thakur Versus Golden Tobacco Limited, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2018 R.N. Choubey, District Surguja (C.G.) & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Principal Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, District Raipur (C.G.) High Court of Chhattisgarh
09-07-2018 Vikas Ahuja Versus Jaiprakash Joshi & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
05-06-2018 Vikas Dhanaji Sawant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-05-2018 Satyendra Singh Gangwar Versus U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-05-2018 Vikas Bhaskar & Others Versus University of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
18-04-2018 Vikas Kumar Versus Purshotam Verma High Court of Delhi
17-04-2018 Vikas & Others Versus Usha Rani & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
11-04-2018 ITC Ltd., India Tobacco Division, Rep. by its Power of Attorney Sanjay Singh Versus The State of A.P., Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Dept. (CT-II) & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
09-04-2018 Official Liquidator of M/s. Lok Vikas Finance Corporation Limited (In Liquidation), Jaipur Versus Lokesh Kumar Singh & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
19-03-2018 ITC Limited Versus Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
28-02-2018 Dattatraya Versus Board of Directors, Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Dharwad, Represented by its Chairman & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
21-02-2018 Shailendra Tiwari Versus M.P. Sahakari Krishi Avam Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Through its Managing Director & Others Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
20-02-2018 Vikas & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : Principal Secretary, School Education & Sports Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-02-2018 M/s. Ujjwal Moldings Limited, Sabalpur, Patna City, Patna, through its Director, Vikas Kumar Kamalia Versus The Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
19-02-2018 Vikas & Others Versus State High Court of Delhi
13-02-2018 J.P. Verma Versus Delhi Development Authority, Through its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
09-02-2018 ITC Limited, Through its authorized representative & Business Manager Prashant Mishra Versus The State of Karnataka, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Represented by Addl. SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Kalaburagi & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
08-02-2018 CCE Salem V/S ITC Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
06-02-2018 Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Northern Region, New Delhi Versus Vikas Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
31-01-2018 State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
30-01-2018 Siddhi Promoters Versus Anita Krishnarao Shirolkar @ Janaki Vikas Morey & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-01-2018 Vikas Construction Company, Sardarpura, Jodhpur through Proprietor, Jagdish Khanna & Others Versus Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport & Highway, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
16-01-2018 ITC Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-VI Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench, Bench Kolkata
16-01-2018 ITC Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-VI Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
12-01-2018 Vikas Garg Versus State of Rajasthan Through PP High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
12-01-2018 M/s. Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its GPA Holder Vikas Srivastava Versus United Telecoms Limited, Rep. by its Director C. Basavapurnaiah High Court of Karnataka
11-01-2018 Vikas Barala Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
11-01-2018 Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. Versus Railone-Tarmat-Durga (Jv) High Court of Delhi
10-01-2018 Union of India, Through the Secretary Department of Personnel & Training & Others Versus Vikas Chand Chaturvedi Director/Deputy Secretary Forward Markets Commission High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-01-2018 Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Parvatiya Vikas Sansthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-12-2017 Surendra Kumar Srivastava Versus U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Chairman & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
21-12-2017 Jaya Versus Wainganga Babuudesshiya Vikas Sanstha & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur


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