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



International Car and Motors Ltd. v/s Shyam Sundar Sen & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- SHYAM SUNDAR & CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB2008PTC126663

Company & Directors' Information:- S S MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TN2009PTC071098

Company & Directors' Information:- C & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1982PTC026718

Company & Directors' Information:- SHYAM & SHYAM (INDIA) PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U23101WB1983PTC036757

Company & Directors' Information:- SHYAM MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50101KL1996PTC010419

Company & Directors' Information:- SUNDAR MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U35911TN1996PTC036507

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND A MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC016164

Company & Directors' Information:- SEN & SEN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1949PTC017898

Company & Directors' Information:- SHYAM G LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36911RJ1984PLC002921

Company & Directors' Information:- SHYAM COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111UP1946PLC001423

    First Appeal No. A/1298/2017

    Decided On, 14 January 2020

    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Sankar Mukhopadhyay, Sreetama Das, Advocates. For the Respondent: Srijan Nayak, Debesh Halder, Saikat Mali, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Shyamal Gupta, Member

In this Appeal, the legality of the Order dated 30-05-2017 of the Ld. District Forum, Nadia passed in CC/54/2011 is called in question by the Appellant.

The complaint relates to a defective car being purchased by the Respondent.

We have heard the submission advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record.

Documents on record reveal that the Respondent took delivery of the car in question on 01-06-2010 and within a period of one year (till May, 2011), the said car had to be sent to the service centre not once or twice, but 5 times in a row.

It appears, vide impugned order the Forum below directed the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to either return the vehicle in a roadworthy condition after removing the defects or pay back the cost of the vehicle in question. They were further directed to pay compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-, respectively.

From whatever angle we look at it, there can be no manner of doubt as to the fact that the Ld. District Forum at its wisdom passed a well balanced order.

The Appellant cannot disagree to the fact that if a brand new car starts malfunctioning every now and then, it defeats the very purpose of having it. There being nothing to show that the car in question developed problem on account of mishandling of the same by the Respondent No. 1, in our considered opinion, the Appellant cannot escape its liability.

In uncertain terms, the Ld. District Forum directed the Appellant to return the car to the Respondent No. 1. However, it seems, it took no positive step to return the same on its own and instead passed the buck upon the Respondent No. 1 to collect the same from its place. It was a flagrant violation of the direction of the Ld. District Forum and for obvious reason; the Respondent No. 1 did not give in to the dictate of the Appellant.

The Appellant refused to accept that the car in question is suffering from any sort of manufacturing defect. If it is presumed for the sake of argument that the car in question is not suffering from any sort of manufacturing defect, in that case, the inevitable conclusion would be that the service centre is incapable of repairing it properly.

Notwithstanding the Appellant underlined the need for expert opinion to prove the allegation of ‘manufacturing defect’ as made by the Respondent No. 1, it appears that the Hon’ble National Commission in Tata Motors v. Rajesh Tyagi & Anr., 2014 (1) CLT 238 (NC) dealt on this issue at great length. The solemn observation of the Hon’ble Commission assumes great significance in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present dispute and as such the same is appended below.

“6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The main thrust of the line of argument taken by the petitioners revolves around the fact that there was no evidence of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The onus to prove the manufacturing defect is on the complainant and the same should be proved by expert evidence, in the absence of which no liability can be attributed to the petitioner to compensate the complainant. On the other hand, the State Commission in their order have relied upon the definition of defect as contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and stated that a complainant is liable to be compensated, if there is any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, etc. of the vehicle. The State Commission observed in their order as follows:-

5. In our view, it is misconceived notion that any vehicle for that purpose any goods can be ordered to be replaced or the cost can be ordered to be refunded only if they suffer from manufacturing defect. There is no such concept of goods suffering from manufacturing defect enshrined by the provision of Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Protection Act only defines the word defect by way of Section 2(1) (f) of the Act which is to the following effect:-

Defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.

6. In such cases we have taken a sustained view that whenever a consumer goes for a brand new goods like the vehicle his minimum expectation is that he would not encounter or face any inconvenience or hardship for few months or a year and if he had to take the vehicle time and again to the workshop for removing one defect or the other, he suffers immensely in terms of loss of time, loss of business, physical discomfort and emotional sufferings having not reaped the fruits of paying heavy amount for purchasing a new vehicle.

7. We have also taken a view that onus shifts to the manufacturer to show that the vehicle does not suffer from manufacturing defect once complainant has proved and discharged the initial onus that the vehicle was defective vehicle on the basis of large number of job cards showing that vehicle was taken on many occasion for removing one defect or the other. Complainant has already suffered immensely and is a wronged person by having been sold a defective goods and to expect him to again incur expenses by obtaining expert opinion to show the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect will be too much. Large number of visits to the workshop from the day of purchase of vehicle for removing some or other defects is sufficient to draw the inference that the vehicle is a defective vehicle. The circumstance of the vehicle having been taken for removal of defects within or after the period of warranty leaves no manner of doubt that the goods sold to the consumer is not only defective but also suffers from manufacturing defect.

If the defect continues for months together and years together and erupts time and again no other inference can be drawn than that the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect as defects which are not of manufacturing nature can be rectified or removed without their recurrence or without giving any further inconvenience to the consumer.

7. The State Commission have further observed in their order:-

..Bare perusal of the definition of word defect shows that any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.

9. Thus in our view whenever a manufacturer of the vehicle offers to sell the brand new vehicle to the consumer there is an implied contract as to the claim of the manufacturer that the vehicle being sold by it does not suffer from and will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained.

10. The audacity and impunity on the part of the respondent to rub salt on the wounds of the complainant that he should prove that he had been visiting time and again is demonstrated from their reply sent by both respondent as well as reply of notice and other notice sent by the complainant to the respondent No.1. For such type of manufacturers and service providers the Supreme court has in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 65 come down heavily and called upon the Consumer Forum and Commissions established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to not only compensate the consumer as to the actual loss suffered by him but also to compensate him as to the mental agony, harassment, emotional suffering, physical discomfort, loss of business, loss of time by taking vehicle time and again to the workshop.

8. From the entire factual matrix of the case, it is very clearly brought out that the vehicle in question is a defective vehicle when judged from the definition of defect as contained in section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In reply to the legal notice dated 18.07.2003, sent by the petitioner to the complainant, there is a non-ambiguous admission on the part of the OPs that the allegation levelled in the complaint about the defect of water accumulation inside the vehicle are true. The basic question is whether this kind of situation about the vehicle as admitted in the reply to the show-cause notice can be categorised as manufacturing defect or not. In the strict technical terminology, this kind of situation may not lead to the conclusion that there is a manufacturing defect; but still, it goes without saying that whatever defect has been observed in the vehicle for which the complainant had to suffer the mental agony of taking the vehicle to the workshop so many times, has to be attended to in proper perspective. It is the bound duty of both the manufacturer and the dealer to attend to the said defect and make it a defect-free vehicle and if they are not in a position to do so, they should either refund the cost of the vehicle or provide a new vehicle to the consumer. We, therefore, agree with the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission that whenever a brand new vehicle is sold to a consumer, there is an implied contract that the vehicle being sold does not suffer from and will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained.

9. It is further observed that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent social legislation as held by the Honble Apex Court in their judgements from time to time and is aimed at providing for better protection of the interests of the consumers as defined in the preamble to the Act itself. Given the facts at hand, the interests of the consumer in the present case can be protected only if he is provided a vehicle which is free from defects from all angles and he is not subjected to the technicalities of proving whether any manufacturing defect exists or not”.

If a new car turns defunct at regular intervals within few months of its purchase, it hardly requires any expert opinion to certify the inh

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

erent defect of the same. Still we find that the Ld. District Forum took a very lenient view and directed the Appellant to handover the car after removing its defects properly. Such is the ego of the Appellant that, in order to test the tenacity of the Respondent No. 1 further, it preferred this Appeal. There being no merit in this Appeal, the same deserves no favourable consideration. As we find, the car is languishing at the service centre for more than 8- years. In such circumstances, it hardly requires any emphasis that even if the same is repaired temporarily, the defective car would not last long and since the warranty period already got over, the Respondent No. 1 would not be entitled to warranty benefits any more. Considering all aspects, we deem it appropriate to modify the impugned order to the effect that the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall jointly and/or severally return the price of the car in question along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint case till full and final payment is made. Rest of the order shall remain unaltered. In the result, we dismiss this Appeal.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

24-07-2020 Dr. Shyam Sunder Tiwari Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
21-07-2020 Force Motors Ltd. (Formerly K Known As Bajaj Tempo Ltd.) Akurdi, Through Its Authorised Singantory, Pune Versus Shibu Bag & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-07-2020 Biswanath Mukherjee & Others Versus Ranjit Kumar Sen & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-06-2020 Meena Shyam Tulsani, through the Constituted Attorney, Shyam J. Tulsani Versus Collector of Stamps, Andheri & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-06-2020 Coromandel International Ltd. (Earlier Known As Coromandel Fertillisers Ltd.) Through its Authorized Representative, Vishakhapatnam & Others Versus Kamrubai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 IRCON International Ltd. Versus M/s. Meumal Athwani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-06-2020 M/s. Angelique International Limited Versus Public Electricity Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
23-06-2020 Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Mumbai Versus Vinod Kumar Agrrawal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Aberdeen Asia Pacific Including Japan Equity Fund Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1(1)(1) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-06-2020 Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Sri Vinayaka Caterors & Consultants, Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partners, K. Eshwar Versus The Executive Warden, International Hostels, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-05-2020 Shyam Kishor Versus The State High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 M/s. Gayathri Motors, Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Partner, V. Girish Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Taxes Department, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
04-05-2020 Bhansali Productions Pvt.Ltd. Versus Eros International Medial Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2020 M/s. Inter Ads Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. Versus Busworld International Cooperatieve Vennootschap Met Beperkte Anasprakelijkheid High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. Versus Axiom Cordages Limited (Previously Known as Axion Impex International Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-04-2020 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, Having Registered Office at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory Nixon Varghese Versus Kannur International Airport Limited, Mattannur, Represented by Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
19-03-2020 Shyam Sahni Versus Arjun Prakash & Others Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd. V/S Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Dr. Rajesh Jhorawat Versus Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-03-2020 M/s. Meyer Apparel Ltd. Versus M/s. Panchanan International Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
09-03-2020 M/s. Shyam Textiles Limited, Hosur Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-03-2020 Saurendra Nath Sen Versus M/s. Ranjan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-03-2020 EMCIPI Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Sh. R.K. Singh Versus M/S. Shreyans Motors (P) Ltd., Through Its Director/Managing Director & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-03-2020 Biswarup Sen Versus Attcon Projects Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
02-03-2020 Assistant General Manager & Others V/S Radhey Shyam Pandey Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd. & Another Versus Banothu Rangamma & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
27-02-2020 Perfect Synergy Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sagar Infra Rail International Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
27-02-2020 Abdul Rasheed Versus The Managing Director, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Mumbai & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
25-02-2020 Shyam Sundar Dhal Versus Sharada Devi Bubna & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-02-2020 Saurabh Kar & Another Versus Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-02-2020 APS Forex Services Private Limited Versus Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Finance Controller, TN Rajan & Another Versus Banothu Tharya & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
13-02-2020 Jitendra Kumar Khoiya Versus Shri Krishna Motors, Jhansi Road, Sakhiya Vilas & Others Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
11-02-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus C.R. Sons Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
07-02-2020 Swastik Builders, Satyam Apartments Next to Rowell Continental (Sunny International) & Others Versus Dr. Shobha & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-02-2020 M/s. Texcel International Pvt. Ltd., Sengundram Industrial Area (Near Ford India Ltd.,), Chengalpattu Versus M/s. Chennai Steel Tubes, Rep.by one of its Partner, G. Bhavanishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others Versus Shyam Kishore Singh Supreme Court of India
04-02-2020 Sandhya Dey Versus Kapil Sen & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-01-2020 Shyam Manohar Harit Versus CPIO United India Insurance Company Ltd. Central Information Commission
30-01-2020 Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Others Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
27-01-2020 Hotel Soorya International, Represented by its Partner, S. Arumugam Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 Subir Sen & Another Versus The Ganapati Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-01-2020 M/s. Tata Motors, Mumbai & Another Versus Gopalakrishna Aggithaya Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
24-01-2020 Shyam Sunder Singhvi Versus Union of India High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
22-01-2020 Akilene Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pradip Kumar Sen West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-01-2020 M/s. IRCON International Limited, (A Government of India Undertaking), Rep. by its Joint General Manager(South), Bangalore Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintending Engineer(H), Villupuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 M/s. Sangam Motors, Rep. by its Partner, K.R. Subramanian Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Ariyalur Assessment Circle, Ariyalur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-01-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
14-01-2020 Export Import Bank of India & Another Versus Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
13-01-2020 Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, Japan & Another Versus Rakesh Kant Tuli & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-01-2020 Tata Motors Limited Versus Divya Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
09-01-2020 Tata Motors Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Antonio Paulo Vaz & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-01-2020 Harpritsingh Jarnelsingh Makode & Another Versus Tata Motors Ltd. Mumbai & Another Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
08-01-2020 Shyam Lal Jayaswal Versus Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
06-01-2020 M/s. Prime Gold International Limited, Represented by its Director Achin Aggarwal & Another Versus The Additional Director General, The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Coimbatore Zonal Unit, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-01-2020 Phoenix International Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
04-01-2020 HDFC Bank Limited V/S KPG International Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
03-01-2020 Force Motors Limited Versus Swaranjit Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-12-2019 J. John Winfred Versus International Airport Authority of India Rep. By Airport Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-12-2019 Gopal Aggarwal Versus Metro Motors & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-12-2019 Gopal Aggarwal Versus M/s. Metro Motors & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-12-2019 Shyam Madam Mohan Ruia & Others Versus Messer Holdings Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
13-12-2019 Smitha Mohan, Kulathumkarott, Veliyam, Kottarakkara Versus Managing Director, Zodiac Motors, Kottarakkara & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
12-12-2019 Moets Catering Services Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Bindra Versus Dr. Ambedkar International Center & Others High Court of Delhi
12-12-2019 M/s. Saravana International, Rep. by its Proprietor C.R. Devanathan, Panruti Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panruti High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 M/s. N.V. International Versus State of Assam & Others Supreme Court of India
06-12-2019 Tuli International Through it is Partner, Neeraj Tuli Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Sh. A.K. Longai, Manager, Duly Contituted Attorney & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-12-2019 State of Uttar Pradesh, Thr. Its Secretary Revenue & Others Versus Radhey Shyam Supreme Court of India
02-12-2019 Prajakta Shyam Shelar & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-11-2019 M. Prabhu Ramakrishn Versus Shyam Kumar Shrivastava & & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 Krishna Moulik Versus Tata Motors Finance Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-11-2019 Shama G. Bothe, Director of Chinkara Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus State of Goa, Through the Senior Inspector of Police & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
20-11-2019 Pappu Ghosh @ Samipon Ghosh Versus Tapas Kumar Sen West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-11-2019 Rabi Sen Versus Basanti Shaw (Gupta) & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-11-2019 Shaji B. John, Kings International Ltd., Quilon & Others Versus The Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Cochin, Represented by Its Secretary, Dr. G. Santhanakrishnan High Court of Kerala
07-11-2019 SPT International & Finance Ltd. Versus Bank of Baroda & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-11-2019 Pappu Singh Versus Prahlad Sen High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
04-11-2019 Hari Ram Garg Versus Chittosho Motors & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-11-2019 James Francis Versus Managing Director, M/s Concorde Motors (I) Ltd., Nettoor, Ernakulam & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
30-10-2019 M/s. Usha International Ltd., Represented by its Chief Operating Officer, Haryana Versus Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-10-2019 The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd. Versus Vauxhall Motors Ltd (formerly General Motors UK Ltd) United Kingdom Supreme Court
22-10-2019 M/s. EOS GmbH-India Branch, Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Prakasam Anand (Country Manager), Kolathur Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-10-2019 Shyam Sunder Versus State of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
17-10-2019 K.P.L. International Limited, Represented by it Senior Vice President, R.P. Mundra Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Saidapet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-10-2019 Head Legal, Gmr Hyd International Airport Ltd. Versus Registrar, Airports Economic Regulatory Appellate Tribunal 2 High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-10-2019 Action Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shyam Metalics & Energy Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
09-10-2019 M.L. Kumawat & Another Versus Bharat Bio Tech International Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-09-2019 Chennai Port Trust Versus Chennai International Terminals Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 Ajit Ravi Versus Cochin International Airport Ltd. High Court of Kerala