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



Indian Oil Corporation Limited. v/s TOYO Engineering Corporation & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- IN ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210DL2011PTC212284

Company & Directors' Information:- THE ENGINEERING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1951PTC000699

    O.M.P. (COMM). No. 316 of 2019 & IA. No. 10900 of 2019

    Decided On, 06 March 2020

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

    For the Petitioner: Rajeev Sharma, Nishant Menon, Reeta Mishra, Deepesh, Abhishek Birthary, Advocates. For the Respondents: Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate, Rajshekhar Rao, Sudip Mullick, Susmit Pushkar, Yigal Gabriel, Anchit Oswal, Gaurav Sharma, Monika Singh, Advocates.



Judgment Text


I.A. No. 1296/2020

1. This is an application filed under Section 36 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the respondents for modification of the order dated 09.08.2019 passed by this Court. The contention of the applicants/respondents is that the current Arbitration was invoked on 13.05.2013 and the Award was rendered on 11.03.2019. The Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) received the assent of the President of India on 09.08.2019 and was published in the Official Gazette on the same date. The interim order whose modification is being sought was also passed on 09.08.2019 wherein the Court has directed the petitioner to make only a partial deposit of the awarded amount, which works out to only about 20%.

2. Learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that without prejudice to the contentions that the Amendment Act was not applicable to the present proceedings and there would not have been an automatic stay, the Supreme Court in a recent case in Hindustan Construction Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1520 has declared Section 87 introduced by way of the Amendment Act to be unconstitutional. As a result of this, the current proceedings will be governed by the 2015 Amendment Act and there cannot be an automatic stay on the Enforcement of the Arbitral Award.

3. Mr. Nayar, learned Senior Advocate, contends that in the case of HCC (Supra) the Supreme Court held that an award holder should not be deprived of the fruits of the award rendered in his favour and therefore the petitioner should be directed to deposit the entire awarded amount, which in his submission, along with the post-award interest as on 27.01.2020, is Rs. 695 Crores. Learned senior counsel further contends that in the recent past, Co-ordinate Benches including the Division Benches of this Court have directed deposit of the full awarded amount. Reliance is placed on the order dated 16.07.2019 passed in the case of Mathur & Kapre Associates Private Limited v. ESIC, OMP (ENF) (COMM) 114/2019 as well as order dated 12.09.2019 in the case of Serum Institute of India Ltd. v. Union of India, OMP (ENF) (COMM) 158/2019. Reliance is further placed on the following orders:-

i. Zapdor-UBS-ABN (JV) v. Central Organization of Railway Electrification (Core): Order dated 18.09.2019 passed in OMP (ENF) (COMM) 163/2019.

ii. S. Ghosh & Associates v. Delhi Development Authority: Order dated 25.09.2019 passed in OMP (ENF) (COMM) 169/2019

iii. Seaspray Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd: Order dated 26.09.2019 passed in OMP (ENF) (COMM) 80/2019

4. Learned senior counsel further argues that this Court has recently in the case of Power Mech Projects Ltd. v. SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation, OMP (I) (COMM) 523/2017 decided on 17.02.2020, directed the petitioner therein to deposit the entire principal amount, awarded in favour of the respondent, despite the fact that there were previous orders of Court, in that very case, directing deposit of lesser amount, along with Bank Guarantee of Rs. 30 Crores, as against the awarded amount of Rs. 142 Crores (Principal). The argument, therefore, is that the order dated 09.08.2019 should be modified to bring it in line with the recent judgments, and the petitioner be directed to deposit Rs. 695 Crores.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand vehemently opposes the application. Mr. Sharma arguing on behalf of petitioner/non-applicant submits that the respondents are seeking modification of the interim order dated 09.08.2019 without there being any change in the circumstances and none has even been pleaded by the respondents, to warrant a modification of the order. It is argued that the application is an abuse of the process of law and the respondents are seeking a re-hearing of an issue which was argued at length on 09.08.2019 and settled by Court after a detailed hearing.

6. Mr. Sharma further argues that the respondents are giving a wrong impression, that the order was passed at a point in time when the law permitted an automatic stay of the Arbitral Award, during the pendency of proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. He submits that this is completely wrong as on 09.08.2019 the legal position was that there was no automatic stay of the Arbitral Awards and it is for this reason that the petitioner had filed an application for stay of the operation of the Impugned Award. The respondents had argued at length opposing the application. Their opposition was taken note of and the Court after hearing and being satisfied that the petitioner had a prima facie case on merits had passed the order directing deposit of Rs. 125 crores. Learned counsel vehemently submits that the order itself indicates that the Court was of the view that the Impugned Award was contrary to an earlier judgment of this Court and the case of the petitioner being covered by it warranted that the enforcement of the Award be stayed.

7. Mr. Sharma further argues that the order was passed considering the 2015 Amendment Act and the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India V. Kochi Cricket Private Limited and Ors., (2018) 6 SCC 287 whereby the Amendments in 2015 were made applicable to Court proceedings which had commenced thereafter. The Court was conscious of the legislative and legal mandate and so was the petitioner who had filed a stay application being IA No. 10900/2019. It is argued that there is no mandate of law that the Court must direct a 100% deposit by a party which is challenging the Award and it is merely the discretion of the Court to direct the amount of deposit depending on facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the Court has already exercised its discretion under Section 36(2) & (3) of the Act and directed deposit of Rs. 125 Crores.

8. Mr. Sharma has further argued that even the figure of Rs. 125 Crores which has been directed to be deposited is not without significance. He points out that the principal amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal is Rs. 458 Crores and out of this a sum of Rs. 321 Crores is on account of the price discount, which is an issue already covered against the respondent by an earlier judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Larsen & Toubro Limited, OMP (COMM) 366/2017. Thus, the dispute between the parties that is not covered by the said judgment would only be for an amount of Rs. 125 Crores, assuming that the petitioner was to succeed on account of the issue relating to Rs. 321 Crores. Keeping this in mind, the Court has rightly directed deposit of Rs. 125 Crores and there is no reason why the order should be modified.

9. Mr. Sharma also argues that the petitioner is a ‘Maharatna’ Company and there is no risk of the Impugned Award not being honored, if the petitioner fails in its endeavor to have the same set aside.

10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

11. There is no quarrel with the proposition urged by Mr. Nayar, learned Senior Advocate that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in HCC (Supra), there is no automatic stay on the enforcement of an Award, only because an Award is challenged by a party by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Act. Mr. Nayar is also right in his contention that the Supreme Court in the said case has clearly held that an award holder must be able to reap the fruits of an award in its favour and should not suffer only because the other party has chosen to challenge the Award, as it is a well-known fact that litigations can go on for a long time. The Supreme Court has clearly held that the Arbitral Award is a money decree and should be enforced accordingly.

12. The controversy which this Court has to decide in the present application is whether the interim order passed by the Court on 09.08.2019 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 125 crores which is approximately 20% of the awarded amount, deserves to be modified. Mr.Nayar rightly submits that in the recent past the Supreme Court and this Court have passed several orders where the objector has been directed to deposit 75% or even 100% of the awarded amount, before the enforcement of the award is stayed. But in my view the stage for considering the amount which the petitioner must deposit for seeking stay on the enforcement of the Award was on 09.08.2019, when the Court heard both the parties on the stay application. It was at that stage that the Court was called upon to exercise its discretion on the basis of the law and the facts and circumstances of the case and decide whether the entire awarded amount should be deposited or a part of the said amount. Mr. Sharma, in my view, rightly contends that the Court at that stage had heard the parties at length and had exercised its discretion directing a deposit of Rs. 125 Crores. The question therefore that arises is whether the Court can be called upon to exercise this discretion once again and modify the order despite the fact that there has been no change of any circumstance between 09.08.2019 and the date when the present application was filed. It is significant to note that the respondents have not pleaded any change of circumstances in the application and nor was any such argument even raised during the hearing of the application. The two grounds that are sought to be raised by the applicant do not relate to any change of circumstance.

13. The first ground raised by the respondents is that when the order was passed by the Court on 09.08.2019, the 2019 Amendment Act had been notified on the said date itself. The Court was in a regime where Section 87 had been introduced and it was an era of an automatic stay. In my view, the argument of the respondents is not correct. The petitioner is right in its contention that it was conscious of the fact that there would be no automatic stay of the Award and therefore it had filed an application for stay of the operation of the Award. Had the contention of the respondents been correct, in my view, the Court would not have passed an order of directing even the deposit of Rs. 125 Crores, before staying the Enforcement of the Award as an automatic stay would not entail any deposit by the objector. In fact, the order itself indicates that even the Court was conscious that there could not have been an automatic stay and therefore directed a deposit of Rs. 125 Crores by the petitioner subject to which it had stayed the Enforcement of the Award.

14. In so far as the second ground is concerned, Mr. Nayar has vehemently argued that the Courts have in recent orders and judgments been insisting on the full deposit of the entire amount. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of SEPCO (supra) to contend that an earlier order directing a deposit of lesser amount was modified by this Court and it was directed that the entire principal amount under the award be deposited.

15. I have gone through the various orders including the judgment passed by this Court in the case of SEPCO (supra). It is important to mention that in the case of SEPCO (supra), this Court had noted that there is no mandate of law that in every case the Court should direct 100% deposit of the awarded amount. This is purely in the discretion of the Court and the discretion has to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of each case. In so far as SEPCO (supra) is concerned what had weighed was the fact that the petitioner therein was a foreign Company, with no assets in India. The various affidavits filed by it disclosing its ongoing projects were also a subject matter of serious dispute between the parties. Most significantly, the distinguishing factor in the case of SEPCO (supra) was that when the Court passed the order on 17.02.2020, it was exercising its discretion to direct the petitioner to deposit an amount subject to which the Enforcement of the Award was to be stayed and it was also to be decided whether petition was to be admitted to hearing. Therefore, the stage in SEPCO (supra) was a stage which is comparable with the stage in the present petition when the order of 09.08.2019 was passed. Thus, in my view the two cases are incomparable.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner in my view is also right in its contention that when the order was passed on 09.08.2019, the Court was of the prima facie view that the petitioner had a good case on merits and was prima facie covered by an earlier judgment of this Court with regard to at least one issue. The fact that this factor weighed with the Court is evident from a bare reading of the said Order of 09.08.2019 where the Court records this contention of the petitioner as well as the judgment in the earlier case. The Order also indicates that the respondents were heard at length before the said Order was passed and at the cost of repetition, I must state that t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

here has been no change in any circumstance from the date of passing of that Order till date. 17. In so far as the various orders relied upon by the respondents are concerned, I may only notice that the orders passed in those cases are in the Enforcement petitions where obviously there have been no earlier orders of the Court directing deposit of the amount for staying the enforcement of the award. In so far as the judgment in the case of Pam Developments Private Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, Civil Appeal No. 5432/2019, is concerned and which is relied upon by the respondents, it can only be said that the proposition of law laid down therein can hardly be questioned. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has held that no special treatment under the Act can be given only because Government is a party and the CPC as well as the Arbitration Act cull out no difference between a private party and the Government as a party. In my view this judgment cannot help the respondents since in the present case, the main ground of the petitioner is not that it must be given an exceptional treatment or indulgence only because it is a Public Sector Undertaking. The main contention of the petitioner as brought out above is that the Court having exercised its discretion once, there being no change of circumstance, the Order calls for no modification. 18. In my view there is thus no merit in the application and the same is hereby dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-09-2020 M/s. Khushee Construction through its Power of Attorney Holder, Patna Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
25-08-2020 The Mining & Engineering Corporation Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
21-08-2020 M/s. Metal Tubes & Rolling Mills, Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri (East) & Another Versus The Official Liquidator, Liquidator of Transpower Engineering Ltd. (In Liqn.) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-08-2020 Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt Ltd & Another. Versus Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Defence & Another. High Court of Delhi
13-08-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Higher Education, Chennai Versus Syed Ammal Engineering College, Rep. By its Administrative Officer, Ramanathapuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 M. Raj Sekhar Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Public Health & Municipal Engineering Dept. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-07-2020 Mahrishi Arvind Institute of Engineering, Rajasthan Versus Ranjit Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, R. Natraj Versus M/s. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited, Represented by its Director, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-07-2020 Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering & Technology & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
06-07-2020 K. Prem Chander & Another Versus M/s. Hella India Automotive Private Limited Formerly known as FTZ Engineering (P) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 Rohini Gogoi (Under Suspension) Versus State of Assam Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Health Engineering Deptt. High Court of Gauhati
15-06-2020 ISTTM India Private Limited Versus Engineering Staff College of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
11-05-2020 Posco Engineering & Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sinew Developers Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
11-05-2020 South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd. (Seamec Ltd.) Versus Oil India Limited Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 M/s. COPCO Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director K. George Versus Southern Railway, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-03-2020 M/s. Rite Choice Foundations and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, C.K. Sridhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Dr.(Mrs) Sania Akhtar, Working as Principal Director (Senior Principal Scientist), Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology SARP, Bangalore Versus The Director General, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers, Guindy, Chennai & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
02-03-2020 M/s. Project Engineering Corporation Limited, Ernakulam, Represented by Manager (Administrations) Binu Jacob Versus M/s. Doshion Private Ltd., Ahmedabad, Represented by Its Director, Rakshit Doshi High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Rep. by its Chairman, Er.A. Mohamed Yunus, Trichy & Others Versus The Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Guindy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Nileshbhai Arvindbhai Gandhi, Director, Cube Construction Engineering Limited Versus State of Gujarat & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
10-02-2020 M/s. JV Engineering Associate, Civil Engineering Contractors, Represented by its Partner, S. Jaikumar Versus General Manager, CORE, Allahabad, Represented by Deputy Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification, Chennai, Egmore High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 V. Vennila Versus The Executive Engineering Transmission Line Construction/ Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. (TANTRANSCO), Thanjavur District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 M/s. Shintec Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Authorised Signatory, Vanagaram Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) JJ Nagar Assessment Circle, Thirumangalam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Tarun Keshrichand Shah & Another Versus M/s. Kishore Engineering Company & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-02-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department, rep. by the Divisional Engineer (H) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division-1 Versus M/s. Jenefa Constructions, Civil Engineering Contractor, rep. by its Partner, M. Arunachalam High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-01-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd. Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raipur
21-01-2020 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Nandanam, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. UB Engineering Limited, Rep. by its Power of Attorney G.D. Deshpande & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Tractebel Engineering Private Limited Versus Patnazi Power Limited National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
21-01-2020 The Indian Officer's Association, Chennai Versus M/s. Swaruba Engineering Construction Company Private Limited, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Meerut Development Authority Meerut Versus M/s Civil Engineering Construction Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-01-2020 State of AP Versus Devi Engineering & Construction High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-01-2020 M/s. Jullundur Engineering Complany, Jalandhar V/S Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
09-01-2020 Ajay Kumar Bishnoi, Former Managing Director, M/s. Tecpro Systems Ltd. Versus M/s. Tap Engineering, Rep. by Jawahar High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 M/s. Sathee Engineering Construction Company, Rep. by its Proprietor, Gopu Kumar, Kollam Versus Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Caparo Engineering India Limited V/S Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs and Excise, Ujjain Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
03-01-2020 Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Versus Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-01-2020 C. Narayanasamy (Deceased) & Others Versus The Executive Engineer, Agriculture Engineering Department, Tiruvannamalai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-01-2020 Raj Engineering Works and Others. V/S Indian Overseas Bank DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM
20-12-2019 Infant Jesus College of Engineering, Rep. by its Chair Person, A. Roselet Bai Versus The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 Standard Chartered Bank Versus Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
18-12-2019 M/s. Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Represented by its Authorized Representative, New Delhi Versus V.O.Chidambaram Port Trust High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-12-2019 Basava Engineering School of Technology Rep. by its Principal B.J. Patil Versus State of Karnataka Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Department of Technical Education High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
25-11-2019 National Highways Authority of India Versus Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
20-11-2019 M/s. Coverntry Springs and Engineering Company Limited & Others Versus M/s. Assets Reconstruction Company of India Limited (ARCIL) & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-11-2019 The Manager, Vimal Jyothi Engineering College, Kannur & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
15-11-2019 M/s. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kerla Water Authority High Court of Kerala
13-11-2019 The Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Sub Regional Office, Kochi Versus M/s. Western Marine Engineering, Kochi, Represented by Its Managing Partner, K.T. Jacob High Court of Kerala
29-10-2019 Vinod Kumar Jain Versus U.T. Administration, through Secretary Engineering, Chandigarh & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
25-10-2019 Hindustan Engineering Training Centre, Rep. By its President 40, Chennai Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax –III 121, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-10-2019 S. Ravi & Others Versus Dev Anand Vijayan, Executive Director, The Management of Sri Karthikeya Spinning & Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., Formerly known as Perur Engineering Products, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-10-2019 M/s. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Represented herein by its authorized Signatory, Satish Padmanabhan Versus M/s. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US)LLC & Others High Court of Karnataka
17-10-2019 M/s. Teems Engineering Construction, Rep. by its Partner, G.R. Ravi, Chennai Versus The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, General Construction Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-10-2019 Vivek Verma Versus Ipro Sugar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
30-09-2019 M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory A. Vinolin Versus M/s. Shri Ramana Geavy Engineering P. Ltd., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus FEPL Engineering (P) Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
23-09-2019 National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Others Versus M/s T.K. Engineering Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
13-09-2019 Pragatisheel Engineering Shramik Sangh Industrial Estate, Chhattisgarh Versus Simplex Castings Ltd, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2019 K. Dhanasekar Engineering Contractor Versus The Union of India, rep.by its General Manager Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2019 Ethos Ltd. Versus Vijay H.A. Proprietor Interscap Engineering National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2019 Manjeera Engineering & Construction Company Private Limited Versus Union of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-09-2019 Ashish Manik Versus Sr Marine & Offshore Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
05-09-2019 M/s. Velar Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director A.C. Vadhivelu Versus The Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Kanchipuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2019 IL&FS Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Formerly Maytas Infra Ltd., Represented by Prabhakar Reddy Versus Government of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2019 Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Versus A Consortium of Sime Darby Engineering Sdn. Bhd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-08-2019 Dr. Bareet Chand Versus IMS Engineering College & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-07-2019 M.J.R. College of Engineering & Technology, Rep., by its Principal, G.V. Ramu & Another Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Corporation Bank, Damalacheruvu Rep., by its Branch Manager, Sudhir Kumar Dubey High Court of Andhra Pradesh
25-07-2019 M/s. Emkay Engineering Works, Represented by its Proprietor, R. Chinniah, Chennai Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Pattaravakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2019 Corsan Corviam Construccion S.A.-Sadhbhav Engineering Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade & Taxes High Court of Delhi
18-07-2019 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented by the Chief General Manger, Telecom (Tamilnadu Circle), Chennai & Others Versus M/s. Sakthi Engineering Constructions, Erode & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2019 M/s. Aditya Auto Products & Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Head-HR Ramesh Pai Versus M/s. Aditya Auto Products (NTTF), Rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
12-07-2019 Bhajarang Engineering College, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Trustee, M.G. Baskaran Versus All India Council for Technical Education, Rep. by its Advisor - I (Approval), New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2019 Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Rajinder Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-07-2019 A. Chinnadurai, Handloom Contractor, Government College of Engineering 1st Gate, Salem Versus M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., rep. by its General Manager, Indian Oil Bhavan, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-07-2019 M/s. Perfect Engineering Associates Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus The Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-07-2019 IL & FS Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. Versus Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Others High Court of Jharkhand
27-06-2019 M/s. Shree Venkateshwara Educational & Charitable Trust, Represented by its Chairman, P. Venkatachalam, Administering Shree Venkateshwara Hi-Tech Engineering College, Erode Versus The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-06-2019 Excel Engineering College, Rep. by its Director, Namakkal District Versus The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-06-2019 Sri Nandhanam College of Engineering and Technology, Molagarampatti, Tiruppattur, Rep. by its Chairman, P.M.N. Mohan Krishnaa Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-06-2019 Indirani Versus The Superintending Engineering, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Salem Electricity Distribution Circle & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-06-2019 M. Kumarasamy Health & Educational Trust, Administering M. Kumarasamy College of Engineering, Rep. by its Managing Trustee, Dr. K. Ramakrishnan Versus The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2019 The Director, Rajagiri School of Engineering & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
22-05-2019 Union of India Versus M/s. Sikka Engineering Co. High Court of Delhi
17-05-2019 The Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Karimganj Versus M/S Gopinath Udyog P Ltd. Karimganj & Others High Court of Gauhati
08-05-2019 Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited Versus Standard Chartered Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-04-2019 Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Rep. by its Sivakumar, Accountant, Madurai Versus Joint Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-04-2019 Diffusion Engineering Limited Versus Prithviraj Patle In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
24-04-2019 Arihant Engineering Industries and Others V/S Leo Ispat Ltd. and Others. High Court of Delhi
18-04-2019 M/s. Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd., Rep.by T. Ashok Reddy, Associated Vice-President (Legal) Versus The Commissioner of Central Tax & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
16-04-2019 M/s. Southern Cogen Systems Private Limited, Vellachery, Rep. by its Director B.S. Adisesh Versus M/s. Sree Venkateswara Engineering Corporation, Coimbatore, Rep. by its Managing Director, C.N. Sathyamurthy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-04-2019 Galvanotek Industries Private Ltd. Versus Coventry Spring & Engineering Company Ltd. & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
12-04-2019 Andrews Mathew Versus Madura Coats Ltd., Ambasamudram Taluk, Through it's Manager, (Engineering Services), S. Balakrishnan Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-04-2019 The Executive Engineering IITMPD-II, CPWD, IITM Project Circle, IITM Campus, Chennai Versus M/s. IVRCL Ltd., Andhra Pradesh & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-04-2019 Garware Wall Ropes Ltd Versus Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd. Supreme Court of India
10-04-2019 M/s. Rabi Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST & Excise, Kolkata North Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Regional Bench Kolkata
05-04-2019 The Managing Director, Hi tech Engineering and Eco Solution (P) Ltd., Edayar, Paravoor, Ernakulam Versus Mathew Philip, Vettikkad Estate, Kaliasanad & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
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
02-04-2019 L.S. Raja Versus Engineering in Chief & Chief Engineer (General) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras