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



International Road Dynamics South Asia Pvt. Ltd. v/s Jaora Nayagaon Toll Road Company Pvt. Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- JAORA - NAYAGAON TOLL ROAD COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203MP2007PTC019661

Company & Directors' Information:- U-TOLL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203DL2002PLC116637

Company & Directors' Information:- A S INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1993PLC056158

Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL ROAD DYNAMICS SOUTH ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150DL2005PTC137834

Company & Directors' Information:- L T INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1999PLC097892

Company & Directors' Information:- A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102GJ2008PTC053840

Company & Directors' Information:- T. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL1997PTC091049

Company & Directors' Information:- R C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TG1991PLC012477

Company & Directors' Information:- P V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1998PTC094598

Company & Directors' Information:- A.S.I.A PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999KA1983PTC005591

Company & Directors' Information:- J & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900PB2013PTC037302

Company & Directors' Information:- ASIA CORPN. PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102TN1946PTC000135

    Company Petition No. 26 of 2016

    Decided On, 20 July 2018

    At, High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

    For the Petitioner: Joydeep Bhattacharya, Learned Counsel. For the Respondents: Paresh Joshi, Learned Counsel.



Judgment Text

1. The Registry has raised an objection in view of the notification dated 7/12/2016 for transferring the matter to the NCLT. The respondent in pursuance to the direction of this court has filed an affidavit dated 7/6/2018 disclosing that the notice of the present company petition was served upon the respondent on 5/11/2016 whereas, in terms of the said notification, the cutoff date is 15/12/2016. Hence, the company petition is required to be heard by this court and it is not required to be transferred to NCLT. Hence the objection is rejected. With consent heard on the question of admission.

2. By this petition under Section 439 of Companies Act, 1956 the petitioner is seeking winding up of respondent company under Section 433 (e) of the Act on the ground of inability to pay the 2 debt.

3. The case of petitioner is that the respondent company is engaged in the business of constructing roads and highways as also civil engineering works and petitioner is engaged in the business of supplying electronic tolling and traffic management equipment and highway traffic management system associated with road projects and rendering technical service/assistance design, AMC etc. The petitioner had entered into an agreement dated 17/8/09 with the respondent for design, manufacture, inspection, testing, supply and installation of toll collecting system at three toll plaza locations for the project 4 laning of Jaora Nayagaon Section of SH-31 at a total cost of Rs. 1,87,95,000/-. The respondent had also entered into annual maintenance contracts for maintenance of equipment installed at Nayagaon toll booths. Three such AMCs were entered into in succession. It is also alleged that respondent had purchased equipment worth Rs. 4,62,119/- from petitioner, hence total invoice amount was Rs. 2,17,00,278/- and against the said invoices, the petitioner had made payment of Rs. 1,59,72,466/-. Hence a sum of Rs. 42,41,993/- is still outstanding which inspite of repeated request was not paid by respondent, therefore, petitioner had issued the statutory notice dated 12/11/2015 demanding the aforesaid outstanding amount and the reply dated 5/12/2015 was sent by respondent denying the liability. Hence the present petition has been filed to wind up the respondent company on the ground of neglecting to pay the outstanding due of Rs. 42,41,993/- together with interest @ 8% per annum.

4. The stand of respondent in the reply is that due amount has been paid and the alleged outstanding amount is a disputed amount and petitioner had failed to comply with the terms and 3 conditions of the agreement.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner referring to chart as contained in paragraph 7(e) of the petition has submitted that out of total amount reflected therein only a part payment has been made and outstanding amount of Rs. 42,41,993 has not been paid and that in the reply to the statutory notice the defence which is taken is a moonshine and since the respondent has neglected to pay the outstanding amount inspite of statutory notice and respondent company is running in losses, therefore, a case of winding up is made out.

6. As against this learned counsel for respondent has submitted that the debt is bonafidely disputed and the amount is not payable by respondent and respondent is a commercially solvent company having 200 employees involved in BOT project, therefore, for such a disputed debt no case for winding up is made out.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

8. It is also the settled position in law that if debt is bonafide disputed on substantial grounds, petition for winding up shall not be entertained. In such a case party seeking winding up cannot be regarded as creditor of company for purpose of winding up. If the debt is bonafide disputed, there cannot be 'neglect to pay' within the meaning of Section 433(1)(a) of the Companies Act and if there is no neglect, the deeming provision does not come into play.

9. The Supreme Court in the matter of IBA Health (India) Private Limited Vs. Info-Drive Systems SDN. BHD. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 553 has held that if the creditor's debt is bonafide disputed on substantial grounds, the Court should dismiss winding up petition and that a dispute would be substantial and genuine if it 4 is bona fide and not spurious, speculative, illusory and misconceived. The winding up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of the debt which is bona fide disputed by the company and a party to the dispute should not be allowed to use the threat of winding up petition as a means of enforcing the company to pay the bona fide disputed debt and that a Company Court should act with circumspection, care and caution and examine as to whether an attempt is made to pressurise the company to pay a debt which is substantially disputed. It has also been held that provision of Section 433 (e) & (f) cannot be invoked where there is a bonafide dispute as to liability and it is the duty of the court to ascertain the causes for refusal to pay debt and if the debt is bonafide disputed on substantial ground petition for winding up should not be entertained and that the court should act with circumspection and examine whether winding up petition is used as ploy to pressurise company to pay substantially disputed debt and the court has to ascertain whether refusal was due to reasonable cause or existence of bonafide dispute which can be adjudicated only by trial in civil court and if not so adjudicated, cause serious prejudice to company. In this regard in IBA Health (supra) it has been held that:

20. The question that arises for consideration is that when there is a substantial dispute as to liability, can a creditor prefer an application for winding up for discharge of that liability? In such a situation, is there not a duty on the Company Court to examine whether the company has a genuine dispute to the claimed debt? A dispute would be substantial and genuine if it is bona fide and not spurious, speculative, illusory or misconceived. The Company Court, at that stage, is not expected to hold a full trial of the matter. It must decide whether the grounds appear to be substantial. The grounds of dispute, of course, must not consist of some ingenious mask invented to deprive a creditor of 5 a just and honest entitlement and must not be a mere wrangle. It is settled law that if the creditor's debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, the court should dismiss the petition and leave the creditor first to establish his claim in an action, lest there is danger of abuse of winding up procedure. The Company Court always retains the discretion, but a party to a dispute should not be allowed to use the threat of winding up petition as a means of forcing the company to pay a bona fide disputed debt.

21. In this connection, reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P) Ltd. Vs. A.C.K. Krishnaswami in which this court held that (Comp Cas P. 463) "It is well-settled that 'a winding up petition is not a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of the debt which is bona fide disputed by the company. A petition presented ostensibly for a winding up order but really to exercise pressure will be dismissed, and under circumstances may be stigmatized as a scandalous abuse of the process of the court......."

22. The above mentioned decision was later followed by this Court in Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. Vs. Madhu Woolen Industries (P) Ltd. The principles laid down in the above mentioned judgment have again been reiterated by this Court in Mediquip Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Proxima Medical System GmbH, wherein this Court held that the defence raised by the appellantcompany was a substantial one and not mere moonshine and had to be finally adjudicated upon on the merits before the appropriate forum. The above mentioned judgments were later followed by this Court in Vijay Industries Vs. NATL Technologies Ltd.

23. The principles laid down in the above mentioned cases indicate that if the debt is bona fide disputed, there cannot be "neglect to pay" within the meaning of Section 433 (1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. If there is no neglect, the deeming provision does not come into play and the winding up on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts is not substantiated and non-payment of the amount of such a bona fide disputed debt cannot be termed as "neglect to pay" so as to incur the liability under 6 Section 433 (e) read with Section 434 (1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956.'

10. The Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. Vs. Madhu Woolen Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 1971 SC 2600 has held that where there is no doubt that the company owes the creditor a debt entitling him to a winding up order but the exact amount of debt is disputed, the Court will make a winding up order without requiring the creditor to quantify the debt precisely. It has further been held that the principles on which the Court acts are first that the defence of the company is in good faith and one of substance, secondly, the defence is likely to succeed in point of law and thirdly the company adduces prima facie proof of the facts on which the defence depends.

11. It is also settled position in law that if the debt is bonafidely disputed and defence is substantial one, no winding up order is to be passed. While examining this aspect it is to be seen that the defence should be in good faith and one of substance; it should likely to succeed in point of law and there should be prima face proof of facts on which the defence depends. (See: M/s Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. Vs. Madhu Woolen Industries Pvt Ltd. Reported in 1971 (3) SCC 632; Mediquip Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Proxima Medical System GMBH reported in 2005(7) SCC 42.)

12. It is also settled that Section 433 should be seen in commercial sense (See: (2005) 7 SCC 42.)

13. On examining the present case in the light of the aforesaid legal position, it is noticed that there is no document on record wherein the respondent has admitted liability to pay the alleged 7 outstanding amount of Rs. 42,41,993/-. There is also no document on record conclusively showing the liability on the part of respondent as claimed. On the contrary, the reply and documents enclosed therewith by respondent reveal that the debt is bonafidely disputed.

14. In reply to the statutory notice dated 12/11/15 itself the respondent had denied that the amount of Rs. 42,41,993/- was payable. As per reply against service regarding TMS system the petitioner had raised invoice of Rs. 1,87,95,000/- out of which the respondent had paid Rs. 1,56,92,636/- including the TDS of Rs. 13,65,650/- and debited Rs. 29,02,364/- in view of deficiency in service. For AMC petitioner had raised invoice of Rs 15,73,040/- and respondent had paid sum of Rs. 11,79,780/- after deducting Rs. 3,93,260/- i.e. 25% of the invoice value as penalty towards poor performance. Further stand of respondent is that against the invoice of Rs. 4,62,119/- respondent had paid of Rs. 3,52,065/- after debiting sum of Rs. 1,10,054/- as per agreement towards poor maintenance of TMS system.

15. The aforesaid details as disclosed by respondent clearly reveal that the debt is bonafidely disputed by respondent and the defence which respondent has taken is not a moonshine.

16. Counsel for petitioner referring to the balance sheet filed alongwith the reply as Annexure R-1 has submitted that respondent company is running in losses therefore, it has inability to pay debt. But a perusal of the balance sheets enclosed as Annexure R-1 reveal that in the initial period respondent company was incurring losses but in financial year ending on 31st March 2016 it had earned profit.

17. Counsel for respondent in this regard has also pointed out that since it i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

s a BOT project with a concession period of 25 years, 8 therefore, the entire cost of the project has been borne by the company which is to be recovered through toll collection during the concession period. Alongwith IA No. 3356/18, the respondent has filed the solvency certificate issued by State Bank of India and certificate of Chartered Accountant Krishnamurthy Jain and Suryawanshi showing its healthy financial state as also the CARE rating wherein the respondent has been rated A+ stable and also enclosed the tax payer counterfoil showing that respondent is paying the huge amount towards income tax. These documents clearly reveal that substrata of the company has not been eroded. 18. That apart undisputedly respondent is a running company having more than 200 employees. 19. It is settled position in law that winding up proceeding cannot be used as a tool to recover the bonafidely disputed debts as a substitute for recovery suit. 20. The aforesaid analysis of facts clearly reveal that in the present case not only alleged debt is bonafidely disputed by respondent but financial condition of the company and other circumstances noted above do not make out a case for winding up the company under Section 433(e) of the Act. Hence the company petition is dismissed. C.C. As per rules.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

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
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
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
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
11-05-2020 South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd. (Seamec Ltd.) Versus Oil India Limited Supreme Court of India
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
17-04-2020 JR Toll Road Private Limited Versus Yes Bank Limited High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 Dr. Rajesh Jhorawat Versus Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
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
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
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
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 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Finance Controller, TN Rajan & Another Versus Banothu Tharya & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
14-02-2020 APS Forex Services Private Limited Versus Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Others Supreme Court of India
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
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
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
14-01-2020 Export Import Bank of India & Another Versus Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-01-2020 International Car and Motors Ltd. Versus Shyam Sundar Sen & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-01-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
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
06-01-2020 Phoenix International Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
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
04-01-2020 HDFC Bank Limited V/S KPG International Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
19-12-2019 J. John Winfred Versus International Airport Authority of India Rep. By Airport Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
20-11-2019 SU Toll Road Pvt Ltd., Mumbai Versus The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act 1948, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
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
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 Head Legal, Gmr Hyd International Airport Ltd. Versus Registrar, Airports Economic Regulatory Appellate Tribunal 2 High Court of for the State of Telangana
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
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
20-09-2019 International Society for Krishna Consciousness Versus Ishwari Prasad Singh Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-09-2019 Dharam Vir & Others Versus BGS International Public School & Others High Court of Delhi
18-09-2019 The Management of M/s. International Travel House Limited, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2019 The Management of Toll (India) Logistics Pvt. Limited, Represented by Managing Director, Puzhal Versus The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-08-2019 M/s. Kadimi International Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited High Court of Delhi
27-08-2019 Yun Zhang & Others Versus Sealegs International Limited Court of Appeal of New Zealand
27-08-2019 Central Board of Secondary Education, Application Branch, Shiksha Kendra, Delhi, Represented by its Secretary Versus Manager, Bethlehem International, Vazhakulam, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
19-08-2019 International Flavours & Fragrances India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Office of the Advocate General, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
09-08-2019 Glencore International AG Versus Indian Potash Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
07-08-2019 Sphere International, a proprietorship concern through its proprietor Rakesh Jalan Versus Ecopack India Paper Cup Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-08-2019 San International Business School, Rep.by its Chairman, T. Jayalakshmi Versus The Director, Centre for Affiliation of Institutions, Anna University, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2019 K. Mahendran, Trincomalee Versus Deutche Welle Radio and TV International, Colombo Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
30-07-2019 M/s. Kuldip Singh Sethi & Gagan Goyal Versus Ecole Globale International Girls School High Court of Uttarakhand
29-07-2019 Bently Nevada LLC Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) (2), International Taxation & Another High Court of Delhi
25-07-2019 M/s. Hotel Asia the Dawn Versus Laxmi Chand High Court of Himachal Pradesh
23-07-2019 KAS International, Represented by its Proprietor, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Purasawalkam Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-07-2019 M/s. Saravana International, Rep. by its Proprietor, C.R. Devanathan, Panruti Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panruti High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2019 Anand Institute of International Studies, Through Shrimati Arun Pal Anand(Prop/Director), Madhya Pradesh Versus Sani Jaggi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-06-2019 The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Public Works Department, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. GMP International GMBH of Hardenberg Strassee 4-5, Rep.by its Authorised Singatory Col.C. Jaisankar (Retd.) High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-06-2019 R. Mallika & Another Versus Expeditors International India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Supervisor in Accounts department Bharanidharan High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-05-2019 Atakas Ticaret Ve Nakliyat As Versus Glencore International Ag Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
29-05-2019 Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Versus LMJ International Limited & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
16-05-2019 International Centre For Alternative Dispute Resolution Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
15-05-2019 R (on the application of Privacy International) Versus Investigatory Powers Tribunal & Others United Kingdom Supreme Court
14-05-2019 RUBFILA International Limited NIDA Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
10-05-2019 International Cycle Gears Versus The Controller of Patents & Designs & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-05-2019 C. Mahendra International Ltd Versus Naren Sheth & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
03-05-2019 M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. & Another Versus Official Liquidator of M/s Minar International Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-05-2019 Gugulothu Alya Versus Seed Works International Pvt Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-04-2019 Vijay Mohan, Sole Proprietor M/s. Agri Tech Versus M/s. Real Blue International Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Manoj Soman & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2019 Albin Micheal Versus AIR Asia India Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-04-2019 Global Asia Venture Company & Others Versus Arup Parimal Deb & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-04-2019 Sumati Choraria & Another Versus M/s. Life Cell International (P) Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-04-2019 Immanuel Arasar International Institute of Science & Technology Educational Charitable Trust rep. by its Founder Trustee Sam G.Jebajoselin Versus The Regional Officer, Southern Regional Office, AICTE & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-04-2019 Maars Software International Ltd. & Another Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
16-04-2019 Hotel Theni International, Rep. by its Managing Director Vinod Mathew Versus The Assistant Commissioner(CT), Commercial Tax Department, Theni-II Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-04-2019 Director Of Income Tax International Taxation Versus M/s. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. High Court of Uttarakhand
09-04-2019 Joseph Santhosh Kottarathil Alexander & Others Versus The Superintendent of Customs (Aiu), Cochin International Airport, Nedumbassery, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
02-04-2019 M/s. Zoom International, Rep. by its Proprietrix, V.N. Usha Versus The Commissioner of Customs & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-04-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited & Another Versus International Commerce Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-03-2019 Ulo Systems LLC, Noida Versus DCIT (International Taxation) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi
29-03-2019 Ircon International Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader High Court Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-03-2019 M/s. Nav Jagriti Niketan Education Society Versus Delhi International School & Others High Court of Delhi
27-03-2019 International Lease Finance Corporation Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
25-03-2019 Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Versus Devasis Rudra Supreme Court of India
20-03-2019 Chicago Constructions International Pvt Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Managing Director S. Mohanakumar Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-03-2019 CBRE South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Versus FIITJEE High Court of Delhi
19-03-2019 International Consolidated Business Pty Ltd. Versus S.C. Johnson & Son Inc Court of Appeal of New Zealand


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box