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



(1) In Re : Rbr Knit Process Private Limited; (2) In Re :Rbr Clothings Private Limited; (3) In Re : Rbr Garments Private Limited


Company & Directors' Information:- D R GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101GJ2005PTC046010

Company & Directors' Information:- RBR GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101TZ2005PTC011823

Company & Directors' Information:- R. R. GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1995PLC095544

Company & Directors' Information:- S G GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2004PLC098193

Company & Directors' Information:- RBR KNIT PROCESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U01712TZ2002PTC010159

Company & Directors' Information:- RBR CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U18101TZ2005PTC011822

Company & Directors' Information:- K K P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921TZ1994PTC005334

Company & Directors' Information:- J P CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2005PTC102051

Company & Directors' Information:- N K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2000PTC107093

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2005PTC101896

Company & Directors' Information:- G AND A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101PB1995PTC016121

Company & Directors' Information:- V H GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52322MH2008PTC181066

Company & Directors' Information:- S R CLOTHINGS LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101KL1993PLC007199

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1996PTC083315

Company & Directors' Information:- R K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18100GJ1994PTC023240

Company & Directors' Information:- G. M. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2006PTC152683

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND D GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1975PTC007923

Company & Directors' Information:- J S GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2009PTC135262

Company & Directors' Information:- K. B . GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2011PTC166954

Company & Directors' Information:- L K S PROCESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101TZ2012PTC017767

Company & Directors' Information:- A K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2015PTC282847

Company & Directors' Information:- D P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2004PTC129479

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143084

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P GARMENTS PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143556

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101HR2005PTC068124

Company & Directors' Information:- L. H. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17121KA2011PTC060761

Company & Directors' Information:- K R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111WB1998PTC087046

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52321TN1993PTC025318

Company & Directors' Information:- P. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204DL2007PTC164238

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17121DL2007PTC165007

Company & Directors' Information:- T S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51494DL1996PTC076668

Company & Directors' Information:- GARMENTS INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909GJ1979PTC003310

Company & Directors' Information:- E PROCESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200MH2005PTC151174

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC164404

Company & Directors' Information:- B G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC142488

Company & Directors' Information:- S P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC120709

Company & Directors' Information:- S T GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2015PTC277043

Company & Directors' Information:- P L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2013PTC248417

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC164395

Company & Directors' Information:- R A GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC123385

Company & Directors' Information:- C S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC134787

Company & Directors' Information:- B L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC136912

Company & Directors' Information:- B D S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC137898

Company & Directors' Information:- T G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143392

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U18101DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- G P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC161067

Company & Directors' Information:- I B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2013PTC257044

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U74110DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- A G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51300DL2013PTC257609

Company & Directors' Information:- V R V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2008PTC182256

Company & Directors' Information:- M V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899HR2005PTC141797

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17120HR2013PTC049037

Company & Directors' Information:- V K GARMENTS PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1981PTC012410

Company & Directors' Information:- A S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17212CH1992PTC012350

Company & Directors' Information:- V R GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101CH1991PTC011345

Company & Directors' Information:- R R CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17122DL2006PTC154110

Company & Directors' Information:- S B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2005PTC141954

    CP Nos. 171 to 173 of 2006

    Decided On, 01 December 2006

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HON'BLE JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN

    P. S. Suman, T. S. Sivagnanam, M. Jayakumar



Judgment Text

CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J

1. These company petitions are preferred under sections 391 and 394 of the , for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor companies with the transferee company with effect from March 31, 2006.

2. RBR Knit Process P. Ltd., the petitioner in C. P. No. 171 of 2006, is the transferor company 1. The main objects of the transferor company 1 as stated in the memorandum of association is narrated in paragraph 3 of the petition and the memorandum of association is marked as annexure A.

3. RBR Clothings P. Ltd., the petitioner in C. P. No. 172 of 2006 is the transferor company 2. The main objects of the transferor company 2 as stated in the memorandum of association is narrated in paragraph 3 of the petition and the memorandum of association is marked as annexure A.

4. RBR Garments P. Ltd., the petitioner in C. P. No. 173 of 2006, is the transferee company. The main objects of the transferee company as stated in the memorandum of association, is narrated in paragraph 3 of the petition and the memorandum of association is marked as annexure A.

5. In the meeting held on August 23, 2006, the board of directors of the transferor company 1, the petitioner in C. P. No. 171 of 2006, considered and approved the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor companies, the petitioners in C. P. Nos. 171 and 172 of 2006, with the transferee company, the petitioner in C. P. No. 173 of 2006. Copy of the board resolution is marked at Serial No. 7. The scheme of amalgamation is marked as annexure C.

6. In the meeting held on May 18, 2006, the board of directors of the transferor company 2, the petitioner in C. P. No. 172 of 2006, considered and approved the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor companies 1 and 2, the petitioners in C. P. Nos. 171 and 172 of 2006, with the transferee company, the petitioner in C. P. No. 173 of 2006. Copy of the board resolution is marked at Serial No. 7. The scheme of amalgamation is marked as annexure C.

7. In the meeting held on May 18, 2006, the board of directors of the transferee company, the petitioner in C. P. No. 173 of 2006, considered and approved the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor companies 1 and 2, the petitioners in C. P. Nos. 171 and 172 of 2006, with the transferee company, the petitioner in C. P. No. 173 of 2006. Copy of the board resolution is marked at Serial No. 7. The scheme of amalgamation is marked as annexure C.

8. It is stated that, the transferor companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of the transferee company. The transferor company 1, the petitioner in C. P. No. 171 of 2006, is having its own factory doing job work for the transferee company. It is stated that the transferor companies and the transferee company are engaged in the similar line of business manufacturing all readymade garments. Considering the fact that both the transferor companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of the transferee company, the parties herein have decided to go for a scheme of amalgamation which would be for the benefit of the companies concerned. It is stated that considering the volume of business of the transferee company and the pressure on its capacity to execute, it is felt that the amalgamation would be beneficial in enhancing the operations of the transferee company. It is also felt that internal economies in administration would lead to better utilisation of infrastructure facilities and optimised productivity of the combined resources. The proposed amalgamation will enable the pooling of the financial, production, manufacture and distribution of resources of the companies to their best advantages. In view of such benefit, the parties herein have resolved to go for an amalgamation.

9. It is stated that the scheme of amalgamation contemplates that all properries, reserves, assets including the investment, registration, contracts, licences, permits and other communication facilities, benefits under various schemes of different taxation laws, liberties, easements, advantages and approval of whatsoever nature was vested in the transferee company with effect from the appointed date, viz., March 31, 2006, or such other date, this court may fix. It is stated that such transfer would be without any further act or deed, pursuant to the provisions of section 394 of the Companies Act. It is also stated that the transferee company shall have all contracts and other instruments of nature to which the transferor companies are parties to the benefit of the transferee company. It is also felt that the transferee company shall enter into and execute deeds or writings or enter into tripartite arrangements, confirmations or novations to which the respective transferor companies will, if necessary be also added as a party to give formal effect to the clause, if so required or becomes necessary.

10. It is stated that upon the scheme coming into effect, the authorised share capital of the transferor companies shall stand combined with the authorised share capital of the transferee company. It is also stated that clause V of the memorandum of association of the transferee company shall, without any further act, instrument or deed, be and stand altered, modified and amended pursuant to sections 94 and 394 and other applicable provisions of the Act by deleting the existing clause and replacing it by the following clause :

"The authorised share capital of the company is Rs. 5, 50, 00, 000 divided into 55, 00, 000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each with power to increase and reduce the capital of the company or to divide the shares in the capital for the time being into several classes and to attach thereto respectively such preferential, deferred, qualified or special rights, privileges or conditions as may be determined by or in accordance with the regulations of the company and to vary, modify or abrogate any such rights, privileges or conditions in such manner as may be for the time being provided by the regulation of the company and the legislative provisions for the time being in force."

11. It is also stated that article 4 of the articles of association of the transferee company shall, without any further act, instrument or deed, be and stand altered, modified and amended by deleting the existing article and replacing it by the following :

"The authorised share capital of the company is Rs. 5, 50, 00, 000 divided into 55, 00, 000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each with power to increase and reduce the capital of the company or to divide the shares in the capital for the time being into several classes and to attach thereto respectively such preferential, deferred, qualified or special rights, privileges or conditions as may be determined by or in accordance with the regulations of the company and to vary, modify or abrogate, any such rights, privileges or conditions in such manner as may be for the time being provided by the regulation of the company and the legislative provisions for the time being in force."

12. The scheme also contemplates that the approval of the scheme by the shareholders of the company under sections 391 and 394 of the Act shall be deemed to have the approval under sections 16, 31 and other applicable provisions of the Act.

13. Since the transferor companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of the transferee company, the entire issued, subscribed and paid up equity capital of the transferor companies will stand automatically cancelled and there would be no issue and allotment of shares by the transferee company to the shareholders of the transferor companies in pursuance of the scheme. On the date immediately preceding the effective date, all employees of the transferor companies in service shall become the employees of the transferee company without any break or interruption in service and on the same terms and conditions which the employees enjoyed in the transferor companies as on such date.

14. The scheme also contemplates the transferor companies shall stand dissolved without winding up. It is stated that the transferor company 1 is in sound financial position. The scheme does not affect the interest of the creditors of the company involved. It is further stated that none of the directors of the transferor companies or the transferee company have any material interest in the proposed scheme of amalgamation. No investigation are pending against any of these petitioner-companies.

15. The transferor company 1, the petitioner in C. P. No. 171 of 2006, has only one secured creditor, viz., State Bank of Travancore. The said bank by its letter dated July 21, 2006, stated no objection to the scheme being sanctioned. The copy of which is marked as annexure D.

16. The transferor company 2, the petitioner in C. P. No. 172 of 2006, has also only one secured creditor, viz., Canara Bank. The said bank by its letter dated August 24, 2006, stated no objection to the scheme being sanctioned. The copy of which is marked as annexure D.

17. As far as the transferee company is concerned, the petitioner in C. P. No. 173 of 2006, it has only one secured creditor, viz., State Bank of Travancore. The said bank by its letter dated June 28, 2006, indicated its no objection to the scheme being sanctioned. The copy of which is marked as annexure D.

18. The transferor company 1, the petitioner in C. P. No. 171 of 2006, obtained consent affidavits from the shareholders. Based on these affidavits, this court by order dated August 30, 2006, in C. A. NO. 1428 of 2006, dispensed with the convening of the meeting of the shareholders of the transferor company 1 for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation. The consent affidavits are marked as annexure E.

19. The transferor company 2, the petitioner in C. P. No. 172 of 2006, obtained consent affidavits from the shareholders. Based on these affidavits, this court by order dated August 30, 2006, in C. A. No. 1429 of 2006, dispensed with the convening of the meeting of the shareholders of the transferor company 2 for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation. The consent affidavits are marked as annexure E.

20. The transferee company, the petitioner in C. P. No. 173 of 2006, obtained consent affidavits from the shareholders. Based on these affidavits, this court by order dated August 30, 2006, in C. A. No. 1430 of 2006, dispensed with the convening of the meeting of the shareholders of the transferee company for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation. The consent affidcivits are marked as annexure E.

21. Considering the fact that the scheme is a bona fide one and in the interest of eveiybody and would benefit the company and the shareholders of the transferee company, the petitioners prayed for sanctioning of the scheme.

22. On notice, the Regional Director, Ministry of Company Affairs has filed his report raising the following objections :

(i) The authorised capital of the company was a notional limit up to which the company can increase its paid up capital. Hence, two notional limits cannot be clubbed together. The authorised capital of the company is not a liability like other liabilities which are to be returned or refunded. Hence, they will not come within the purview of transfer of liabilities under the scheme of amalgamation, that after the amalgamation, the transferor companies would be dissolved and only the transferee company exists and if the transferee company increases its authorised capital, it has to comply with the provisions of sections 94 and 97 of the . In the context of the said objection, the Regional Director has submitted that the same may be taken note of while considering the petition. It is further stated that this court had already allowed the merger of the authorised capital on similar case for amalgamation of M/s. Henkal Spic India Ltd., with M/s. Henkal India Ltd. The Registrar of Companies, Chennai, has filed an appeal against the said order dated July 28, 2005.

(ii) It is further stated that as seen from the balance-sheet of the transferor companies as at March 31, 2006, a sum of Rs. 1, 95, 00, 000 is shown as application money pending allotment in the case of transferor company 1 and, Rs. 1, 45, 53, 000 as application money in the case of transferor company 2. But nothing has been mentioned in the scheme as to how the said application money pending allotment will be treated in the books of the transferee company pursuant to the amalgamation. It is further stated that the said application money cannot be treated as application money in the books of the transferee company and should be shown only as unsecured loan in their books.

(iii) It is stated that there is no enabling provisions for amalgamation in the memorandum of association of the transferor company 2.

23. The Regional Director has stated in paragraph 10 of the report that clause 9 of the scheme protects the interest of all employees in service of the transferor companies and clause 10 of the scheme provides for dissolution of the transferor companies without winding up, upon amalgamation.

24. As regards the first objection on the clubbing of two notional limits, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of this court reported in Cavin Plastics and Chemicals P. Ltd., In re 2006 (129) CC 915 (Mad). Under the circumstances, there are no merits in the objection raised to stand in the way of grant of approval to the scheme.

25. In so far as the second objection is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that clause 2 of the scheme contemplates that all duties, liabilities and obligations of the transferor companies to be transferred or deemed to have been transferred to or vested in the transferee company pursuant to the provisions of section 394 of the Act so as to become the assets or the liabilities of the transferee company. Considering the fact that the said amount has been shown in the balance-sheet at pages 20 and 24 respectively as regards the transferor companies 1 and 2, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is fair disclosure that the same would be treated as a part of its liability. Hence, it would be treated as a unsecured loan in the books of account of the transferee company. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there cannot be any objection to this.

26. As regards the third objection that there is no enabling provisions for amalgamation in the memorandum of association of the transferor company 2, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision reported in Highland Electro Appliances P. Ltd., In re 2003 (2) CompLJ 16 (Delhi), particularly, to paragraph 7 of the judgment, wherein the Delhi High Court referring to the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Hari Krishna Lohia v. Hoolungooree Tea Co. Ltd. 1970 (40) CC 458, held that (headnote) :

"The power to amalgamate one company with another may flow from the memorandum or it may be acquired by resorting to the statute which confers a right on a company to alter its memorandum in aid of amalgamation with another company."

27. The Delhi High Court also referred to a decision reported in United Bank of India Ltd. v. United India Credit and Development Co. Ltd. 1977 (47) CC 689 (Cal), by holding that by invoking sections 391 and 393 of the Companies Act, there are no fetters on the exercise of such powers regardless of whether the power to amalgamate with another company is contained in the memorandum of the concerned company, the company can still go for an amalgamation. The Bombay High Court also taken a similar view in a decision reported in Aimco Pesticides Ltd., In re 2001 (103) CC 463. Considering the scope of powers under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, the Delhi High Court held that :

"... the powers of the court under sections 391 to 394 are not circumscribed by or predicated on the applicant-company possessing powers under its objects clause to amalgamate with any other company. As has been observed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, if such a power is in fact contained in the memorandum of the respective companies, those companies need not seek the imprimatur and approval of the company judge and may initiate and effect the amalgamation de hors the company judge. In these circumstances, the objection raised by the Regional Director is overruled."

28. I am in entire agreement with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court in the decision reported in Highland Electro Appliances P. Ltd., In re 2003 (2) CompLJ 16. In the wake of such enunciation of the law, I do not find any ground for sustaining the objection taken by the Regional Director.

29. A perusal of the scheme shows that it protects the interest of the employees of the transferor companies and thus, the interest of the employees are taken care of. The scheme provides for dissolution of the transferor companies without winding up. There is no objectionable feature in the scheme of amalgamation which is detrimental either to the employees of the transferor companies or of the transferee company. The said scheme is not violative of any statutory provisions. The scheme is fair, just, sound and is not against any public policy or pubic interest. No proceedings are pending under sections 231 to 237 of the Companies Act. All the statutory provisions have been complied with.

30. Consequently, there shall be an order approving to the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor companies, the petitioners in C. P. Nos. 171 and 172 of 2006, with the transferee company, the petitioner in C. P. No. 173 of 2006, as provided in annexure C, with effect from March 31,

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

2006, as the procedure laid down under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act are duly complied with. The petitions are allowed. 31. It may be seen that this court by order dated September 25, 2006, directed the official liquidator to file a report to scrutinise the accounts of the transferor companies, the petitioners in C. P. Nos. 171 and 172 of 2006, and submit a report on the affairs of the transferor companies in terms of the second proviso to section 394(1) of the . The official liquidator has filed his reports along with chartered accountant's report. 32. On a perusal of the report summarising the reports of the chartered accountant, it is seen that the affairs of the transferor companies have not been conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of its members or to public interest and they do not come across any act of misfeasance by the directors attracting the provisions of sections 542 and 543 of the . It is further stated that the records maintained in the office of the Registrar of Companies were also caused to be inspected by the said chartered accountant. In the absence of any inference that the affairs of the transferor companies were being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of its members or public interest, and in the absence of any comments that the affairs of the transferor companies conducted in a manner prejudicial to its members, the official liquidator has filed his reports before this court for orders. 33. Taking note of the report by the chartered accountant as enclosed by the official liquidator, in terms of the order passed by this court, both the transferor companies shall stand dissolved without winding up. The fees of the chartered accountant shall be payable at Rs. 10, 000 each through the official liquidator by the petitioner in C. P. Nos. 171 and 172 of 2006. 34. The learned senior Central Government standing counsel is entitled to a fee of Rs. 2, 500 from each company.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

13-01-2020 Union of India rep. By its Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai Versus M/s. Raiments & Garments International, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 The General Manager, Aleppy Parcel Service, Alappuzha Versus Anil Kumar V., Managing Partner, Wetex Garments, Poovattuparamba, Kozhikode Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
18-12-2019 Sai Regency Power corporation Private Limited (In Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016), Hyderabad Rep. By Resolution Professional G. Ramachandran Versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Puducherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2019 The Management Scotts Garments Limited, Trippur Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-11-2019 Subhash Arora Versus Prasad Process Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
14-10-2019 M/s. PJS Knit Garments, Rep.by its Partner, P. Sugansaran & Another Versus The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Tirupur Main Branch, Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2019 M/s. Indo Skins Garments Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, N. Thiagarajan, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2019 The Officer In Charge, Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office & Another Versus M/s Godavari Garments Limited Supreme Court of India
21-06-2019 Sree Karthick Traders, Rep. by Partner S. Senkuttuvan Versus M/s. Adhithya Textiles Process, Rep. by its Partner N. Balasubramanian & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-04-2019 M/s. Santhosh Textile Process A Partnership Firm Rep by its Partners C. Shanmugasundaram, Tirupur Versus M/s. Veena Texchem Industries, Rep by its Manager P. Gobady, Puducherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-04-2019 The District Collector, Kanchipuram Versus M/s. Gupta Garments, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Anil Gupta & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 M/s. Ginni Garments & Another Versus M/s. Sethi Garments & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
04-04-2019 Ginni Garments and Others V/S Sethi Garments and Others. In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
22-03-2019 Business Process Outsourcing, LlC Versus The Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax), Mumbai & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2019 The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Salem Division & Others Versus M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor Ibrahim Sha, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-12-2018 Batra Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-12-2018 Goodluck Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus., Surat-II High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-09-2018 M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor, Ibrahim Sha, Chennai Versus The Divisional Railway Manager, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2018 Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (Now ECGC Limited), Chennai & Another Versus Zoro Garments Private Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, N.F. Mogrella High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 M/s. Rasathe Garments, Rep by its Partner, Virudhunagar Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I, Virudhunagar High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 Bord for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) Versus Coromandel Garments Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-04-2018 M/s. Sri Rengas Avitta Garments, Represented by its Partner, R. Rajaram & Another Versus R. Indira High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2018 Kandukuri Garments Versus Inspector of Legal Metrology High Court of Karnataka
06-03-2018 In the Matter of: An application under section 30(6) and 31 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 39(4) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 arising out of application under sections 10 and 9 of the I.&B Code, 2016 & Others National Company Law Tribunal Kolkata
03-01-2018 Karpaga Ganapathi Textile Process Private Limited Versus Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-01-2018 A. Velumurugan Versus M/s. Sree Shiva Sakthi Garments, Represented by its Partner Venkatachalam, Tiruppur High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-07-2017 Creative Garments Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E. & S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
06-07-2017 ORR JAY Process V/S Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
06-07-2017 M/s. ORR JAY Process Versus Commissioner of Customs Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
23-06-2017 Rakesh Process & Print V/S Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Imports), Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
03-05-2017 DCIT -3(1), Management India, Mumabi Versus M/s. Emerson Process Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai
10-02-2017 The Management of Foundation Garments Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director ?Divine Grace? Versus Government of Tamil Nadu Labour & Employment (A1) Department, Represented by its Principal Secretary High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-01-2017 R.K. Rajkumar Proprietor M/s. Koghima Garments Versus The Registrar Debts Recovery Tribunal - III Spencer Towers Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2017 Kitex Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director-Sabu M. Jacob Versus State of Kerala, represented by Principal Secretary To Government, Taxes (H) Department & Another High Court of Kerala
02-01-2017 Sonal Garments V/S Commr. of Cus., Seaport (Import), Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
15-09-2016 M/s. Rasathe Garments Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I (FAC) Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-09-2016 Carol Garments & Another Versus The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-06-2016 M/s. Oxygen the Digital Shop, Pulimoottil Arcade, Kottayam & Another Versus Namadevan.L., Anna Garments & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
12-02-2016 M/s. Anjal Garments Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-10-2015 GE Capital Business Process Management Services (P.) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 12 (1), New Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi
24-08-2015 Provident Fund Commissioner Versus M/s. Bena Garments High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-08-2015 M/s. Soundrya Silk Process Versus The Authorized Officer & Chief Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
22-07-2015 M/s. Dinakar Process, B-5, Industrial Estate, rep. by its Managing Partner J.M. Thyagaraj Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
05-06-2015 M/s. Triven Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director & Others Versus State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-04-2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Race Course Road, Coimbatore Versus M/s. Kongoor Textile Process High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2015 SCM Garments (P.) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-III, Coimbatore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
30-01-2015 Revolution Clothings Pvt Ltd. & Others Versus ICICI BANK High Court of Delhi
06-01-2015 M/s. Shree Radhey Krishna Process & Others Versus CCE Ahmedabad-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
18-12-2014 Nelly Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
26-11-2014 Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-II Versus Ankit Garments Manufacturing Co. High Court of Delhi
11-11-2014 M/s. P. Madhurajan (HUF) Prop. Baalaji Process Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Salem High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-11-2014 KMC Textiles & Garments, rep.by its Proprietor, Shaj Mohammed Versus The Chief Manager & Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Trichy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-10-2014 Tamil Nadu Judicial Department Retired Process Servers (State, Central) Association Versus State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-10-2014 Sanvar Clothings (India) P. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director & Others Versus Sujatha, Proprietrix of M/s. Vetribvel Enterprise High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-10-2014 Board of Investment of Sri Lanka Versus Million Garments (PVT) Ltd. Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
28-08-2014 Sakthi Fashions, Manufacturers & Exporters of Fabrics and Garments, Represented by its Proprietrix Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, Represented by its General Manager Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
25-06-2014 Pabba Vishalaxmi Versus Sree Ramana Process Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Pabba Bhim Shankar High Court of Andhra Pradesh
11-06-2014 National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus M/s. Ess Ell Garments Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
01-05-2014 Sri Priyaluckshmi Garments Represented by Mrs. G. Mahalakshmi, Partner & Others Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-04-2014 Vijay Karlekar, Proprietor, M/s. New Keerthi Garments & Another Versus Karnataka State Financial Corporation & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-04-2014 In Re Jagadamba Garments Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-03-2014 M/s. Century Process Versus CCE Ahmedabad Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
26-02-2014 M/s. Lakshya Garments through its Proprietor Versus National Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-09-2013 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Versus M/s. Anjali Silks & Garments High Court of Karnataka
10-09-2013 The Deputy Regional Director & Others Versus Mahalaxmi Process High Court of Rajasthan
26-07-2013 K. Bala Boopathy Versus M/s. Chennai Metal Process, Rep. By its Proprietor V. Goverdaneswar High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-06-2013 Sunrays Textiles Process (Pvt) Ltd., Madurai rep. by its Managing Director P. Rajasekar Versus Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-04-2013 M/s. Viking Garments, (A Partnership Firm) Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-04-2013 A.J. Ramadoss Versus S. Padmavathy and N. Sankar(spouse) Om Siva Sakthi Garments National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-11-2012 CC&CE, Guntur Versus M/s. Kandukuri Garments (P) Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
12-10-2012 M/s. C.S. Garments & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2012 M/s. Rehoboth Garment Process Rep. by its Propreitor P. Joseph Rajasekar Versus Radha Lakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2012 Commissioner of Income Tax Versus First Garments Manufacturing Co. India (P) Ltd High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-06-2012 M/s. Amex Garments Pvt. Ltd. Ekkattuthangal, Guindy, Rep. by Director Versus The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2012 M/s. Kitex Garments Ltd. Versus CC, Cochin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
23-12-2011 M/S. Shyam Garments & Others Versus State Bank Of India High Court of Delhi
09-11-2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Koregaon Branch Soham Bldg., Rahimatpur Road, Koregaon, Dist. Versus M/s. Prinita Garments Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
03-11-2011 Levi Strauss & Company Versus Nizami Garments High Court of Delhi
19-08-2011 M/s. Kongoor Textile Process rep. By its Partner Versus The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Revision Petition) Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-07-2011 Commissioner of Customs Versus Kitex Garments High Court of Kerala
14-07-2011 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Somesh Readymade Garments National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-04-2011 Anthony Garments Pvt., Ltd., Represented by A. Joseph Antony, Managing Director Versus The Commercial Tax Officer & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-03-2011 M/s.Gayatri Garments Represented by its proprietor Shri.B.Selvakumar Versus Smt.S.Valambal, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2011 M/s. V.K.T. Rajkumar Garments Versus The Colonel, Colonel Administration for Commendent, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-02-2011 Global Process Systems Inc and another (Respondents) Versus Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad (Appellant) United Kingdom Supreme Court
20-01-2011 M/s. Diesel Power System Rep. by its Partner Subramaniam Versus M/s. Stable Clothings Rep. by its Partner R. Rathinasamy & Another Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
22-11-2010 M/s. T.K.T. Garments Versus The Manager Sri Balaji Transport Lines & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-10-2010 Dandy Garments Erode Versus The Employees State Insurance Corpn & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2010 M/s. Shyam Garments & Others V/S State Bank of India Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Delhi
18-08-2010 Tvl. V. Win Garments Rep. by its Proprietor Versus The Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-08-2010 M/s. Stallion Garments Versus CC, Tuticorin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
02-08-2010 Rungta Sizing Works & Process Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
30-07-2010 M/s. Muthuraman Exports (Presently known as M/s. Perfect Stitch Garments P Ltd) Versus The Customs & Central Excise & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-07-2010 Vijay S/o Shamrao Bhale Versus Godavari Garments Ltd. & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-06-2010 M/s M.P. Steel Process Versus CCE, Raipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
16-03-2010 Peoples Bank Versus Lokuge International Garments Ltd. Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
18-02-2010 The Management of M/s. Stallion Garments Versus The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2010 M/s. Fine Fit Garments Versus CC, Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
04-01-2010 M/s Shri Ram Garments & Another & Accessories Versus CCE, Meerut Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
09-12-2009 Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Versus M/s. Enmass Process Technologies (P) Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai