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



Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. v/s Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited


Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = L17199GJ1956PLC001107

Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L01132WB1919PLC003334

Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2012PLC231460

Company & Directors' Information:- ISHA DISTRIBUTION HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900WB1999PTC105419

Company & Directors' Information:- ISHA DISTRIBUTION HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109BR1999PTC009083

Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA AND COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107RJ2004PTC019073

Company & Directors' Information:- ON THE HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB2000PTC091842

    GA No. 2326 of 2016, APOT No. 274 of 2016 & CS No. 88 of 2016 (Original Side)

    Decided On, 13 February 2017

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. NISHITA MHATRE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY

    For the Plaintiff: Pratap Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate, Mainak Bose, Amitabh Roy, Ankur Jain, Advocates. For the Respondent: R1, Anindya Kumar Mitra, Sr. Advocate, Sanjib Kumar, Dwaipayen Basu Mallick, Varun Sharma, Avishek Kisku, R2, Saunak Sengupta, Suvodeep Chakraborty, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Tapabrata Chakraborty J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25th July, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS 88 of 2016 by which the plaintiff’s application for interlocutory injunction being GA 884 of 2016 was dismissed and the first defendant’s application for revocation of leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent being GA 2326 of 2016 was allowed.

2. The appellant entered into distributorship agreements for West Bengal and for Bihar and Jharkhand with the first respondent on 11th July, 2007 and on 21st May, 2008 respectively. Till 30th December, 2011 the first respondent used to collect blank cheques from the appellant and to fill them up at its own sweet will and to deposit the same without any prior notice to the appellant. Though the appellant never agreed to such terms but under coercion the appellant was compelled to accept such arrangement. To get out of such arrangement the appellant in the year 2011 entered into a channel finance facility agreement with ICICI bank, Gurusaday Branch at Kolkata on 30th December, 2011 and on the basis of the said agreement the first respondent was required to forward the invoice to the bank and only upon receipt of approval from the appellant, the bank used to make payment of such invoice directly to the first respondent. Such arrangement continued till the month of October, 2013 and as directed by the first respondent, the appellant had to enter into a fresh channel finance facility agreement on 18th October, 2013 with the second respondent being a group company of the first respondent. Thereafter in between April, 2014 and September, 2014 the appellant achieved an aggregate sale about of Rs.12,00,00,000/-. After September, 2014, the first respondent forcibly dumped stock to the extent of Rs.1,36,00,000/- and in the said month itself the sales dropped from Rs.3,85,00,000/- to Rs.50,00,000/- and the consequential deficit was recovered by the first respondent from the credit limit under the channel financing action in gross breach of the terms spelt out in the distributorship agreements. Thereafter threatening e-mails were sent to the appellant and on 29th May, 2015 the appellant was informed by the first respondent that a new distributor has been appointed for the State of West Bengal and the distributorships with the appellant have been terminated. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred the suit, inter alia, praying for a declaration that the termination of the distributorship agreements for the States of West Bengal and Bihar is void, illegal and unlawful. In connection with the suit, the appellant preferred an application for interlocutory injunction.

3. In the backdrop of the above facts, Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant submits that the distributorship agreements were concluded at Kolkata within the jurisdiction of this Court. All official communications and execution took place at the appellant’s previous registered office and present administrative office at 6, Russell Street, Kolkata, as would be explicit from the first respondent’s letters dated 13th January, 2016 and 14th January, 2016. From the agreements it would also be explicit that the witnesses have signed the said agreements at Kolkata and that they never travelled to Bangalore.

4. He further argues that the learned Single Judge has arrived at a finding that the issuance of the letter dated 9th October, 2015 from the Bangalore office constitutes a part of the cause of action but the same pertains to invocation of a bank guarantee which does not form a part of the appellant’s cause of action.

5. He further submits that inadvertently the advocate-on-record of the appellant did not forward to the appellant a copy of the affidavit-in-reply of the first respondent to the affidavit-in-opposition of the appellant filed in connection with the application for revocation of leave. The said affidavit was brought to the notice of the appellant only on 21st July, 2016. The documents annexed at pages 164 to 171 of the first respondent’s affidavit were all fabricated documents. The Value Added Tax (VAT) numbers as incorporated in the purchase orders are not the actual VAT numbers of the appellant and as such the said documents deserve no credence. To place such fact on record and to controvert the allegations made in affidavit filed by the first respondent, the appellant sought for leave to file an affidavit but such prayer was refused and such refusal constitutes violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. On behalf of the appellant it has also been argued that the integral part of the cause of action relates to the second respondent, namely, Aditya Birla Finance Limited inasmuch as on the basis of the representations made by the first respondent, the channel financing arrangement was entered into with the second respondent and all the payments involved in the said distributorship agreements were made by the appellant through the second respondent having its office at Industry House, Camac Street, Kolkata. The forum selection clause between the appellant and the first respondent does not and cannot affect the appellant’s cause of action and the relief as sought for against the second respondent.

7. Records reveal that in the interlocutory application orders have been passed appointing a special officer to make an inventory of the goods and/or stocks lying with the plaintiff at its warehouse at Patna, Bihar. Subsequent thereto, the first respondent preferred an application for revocation of the leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

8. Drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in the plaint, Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the appellant has approached the Court suppressing the fact that in both the said distributorship agreements there were forum selection clauses. In the cause title of the plaint the appellant has recorded its office address as 6, Russell Street, Kolkata – 700071 though in the distributorship agreements the address has been stated to be at 5, Kustia Road, Keola Bhawan, Kolkata-700039. The said agreements were executed on stamp papers purchased in Bangalore and that it was the Bangalore office of the first respondent which did business with the appellant.

9. He further submits that a detailed reply was issued by the appellant through one of its directors to the notice of the termination of the distributorship agreements and such reply of 14th October, 2014 was also addressed to the first respondent at its Bangalore address and also to four officials of the first respondent at the same Bangalore address.

10. He further submits that the argument made on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the documents annexed to the reply are fabricated documents is not acceptable inasmuch as there is no pleading to such effect in the plaint and in the interlocutory application.

11. He further submits that the location of garment division of the first respondent is at Bangalore. The payment obligations under the distributorship agreements were to be performed at Bangalore and the cheques made over by the appellant were deposited for encashment of the drawee bank at Bangalore. The termination notice was issued by the first respondent from its Bangalore office and the reply to the same was also sent to the appellant by the Bangalore office. Thus, no part of the cause of action, as alleged in the plaint, had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and as such the learned Single Judge has rightly revoked the leave granted to the appellant under clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

12. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record as well as the affidavit and the annexures as sought to be brought on record by the appellant before the learned Single Judge.

13. It is now also well settled that a Court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below and that the appellate power is exercised not when a possible view has been taken by the Court of first instance but when the order is clearly wrong. The difference is real though fine.

14. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the appellant has omitted to aver in the plaint as regards the existence of clauses regarding forum selection in the concerned distributorship agreements. The appellant consciously had signed the distributorship agreements and had agreed to the clauses towards forum selection. Once a party has agreed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a Court which is otherwise competent to try and determine the suit, the natural forum should be that Court only and jurisdiction of all other Courts by implication are excluded.

15. There is also no averment in the plaint as regards any inconvenience to be faced by the appellant for pursuing a litigation in the Courts of Bangalore least to say of any insurmountable inconvenience. In the said sequence of facts the balance of convenience takes a back seat and accordingly there cannot be any doubt that all the disputes between the parties pertaining to the said agreements are to be tried at Bangalore. In view of the forum selection clause, the Courts excluded by a valid agreement of the parties become incompetent to entertain the suit.

16. There is no dispute as regards the proposition that this Court derives power from the Letters Patent to do substantial justice and that by virtue whereof the situs of any office of a defendant company within the jurisdiction of this Court will empower this Court to entertain a suit against such defendant company notwithstanding the cause of action in such suit having no nexus with the relevant office within its jurisdiction. However, such discretion can only be exercised within a permissible limit. Inherent jurisdiction of the Court to make order ex debito justitiae cannot be exercised on the rudiments of skirmishes and bald allegations.

17. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the first respondent has placed reliance on fabricated documents is not acceptable, prima facie, inasmuch as erroneous incorporation of VAT numbers in a document cannot render the same to be a fabricated one. There is also no pleading in the plaint and in the interlocutory application to the effect that documents have been manufactured by the first respondent prior to termination of the distributorship agreements.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

> 18. It has been averred in the plaint that all the payments involved in the distributorship agreements were made by the appellant through the second respondent having its office at Industry House, Camac Street, Kolkata. The relationship between the appellant and the second respondent is inextricably attached with the terms of the said agreements and as such it cannot be contended on behalf of the appellant that the forum selection clause in the said agreements cannot affect the appellant’s cause of action against the second respondent. 19. A perusal of the judgment impugned reveals that the learned Single Judge has minutely dealt with all the grounds as averred in the plaint and in the interlocutory application and as argued on behalf of the appellant and upon applying the proposition of law to the facts of the case has arrived at specific findings which do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of this Court. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. In view of such dismissal of the appeal, the application for stay has become infructuous and the same is also dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-06-2020 Aditya Nath Jha Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
03-06-2020 PUEBLO HOLDINGS LIMITED, Rep. by its authorised signatory Siddhesh Sham Kshirsagar Versus EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC, A company incorporated under the appropriate laws of the United Arab Emirates having its registered office and/or business address at ETA Star House, United Arab Emirates & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Aditya Birla Money Limited, Rep. By its Head – Legal & Compliance, L.R. Murali Krishnan Versus The National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Investors Services Cell, Kotturpuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-05-2020 M/s. Mulberry Silks Limited (formerly M/s. Shakashambana Silks Exports (P) Ltd.), 'Mulberry House', Rep.by its Director R.K. Bothra Versus Settlement Commission (IT & WT), Additional Bench, Ministry of Finance, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-05-2020 Manjunath @ Bonda Manjunath Versus State of Karnataka, Through Station House Officer, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
14-05-2020 Ifran @ Badan Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
13-05-2020 Anil Kumar @ Anil Versus State by Kodigehalli Police Station, Rep. by its Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
04-05-2020 Priyambada Devi Birla & Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-04-2020 Nilanjan Bhattacharya Versus The Station House Officer & Others High Court of Karnataka
13-03-2020 Gurmukh Singh Lehal Versus Ajanta Coop. House Building (1st) Society Ltd., Chandigarh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner, Delhi Versus M/s. Sawhney Export House Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-03-2020 Bhanot House Flat Owners/Occupants Association Versus Bhanot Construction & Housing Limited Through Its Directors Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
28-02-2020 Pragalathan & Another Versus State rep. by the Station House Officer, Karaikal High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Dhariwal Infrastructure Limited Mr. Subhransu Gupta, Chief Financial Officer CESE House Chowringhe Square Kolkata Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
20-02-2020 Harish Chandra Singh Versus State of M.P. Through State House Officer, Police Station Ratlam & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
12-02-2020 Ravi Rathi & Another Versus M/s Aditya Construction Company (India) Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its Director, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
07-02-2020 Anilkumar & Other Versus The Station House Officer, Valancherry Police Station, Malappuram & Another High Court of Kerala
07-02-2020 M/s. Veejay Facility Management Private Limited & Another Versus The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, A & S Department, “Star House” & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
06-02-2020 Muhammed Navas Mahamood & Another Versus The Station House Officer, Chokli Police Station, Kannur & Another High Court of Kerala
06-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
30-01-2020 Pramod Poddar Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-01-2020 Chedde Mahesh Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Another Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
28-01-2020 The Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Marmagoa, Goa & Others Versus Shree Balaji Automobiles & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
23-01-2020 Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Others Versus Sunita Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
21-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager, Hathua Lahurabeer, Varanasi, U.P. & Others Versus M/s. Rizwan Export House & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-01-2020 Shyamlal Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer High Court of Chhattisgarh
10-01-2020 T.V. Vishwanath Gupta & Others Versus Amara Jyothi House Building Co- Operative Society Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-01-2020 Veeradurai Versus State Rep. by Station House Officer High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Shaik Atheek Versus Station House Officer, Anchal Police Station, Kollam & Others High Court of Kerala
20-12-2019 Dr. Penumala Viswa Shanti Versus The Station House Officer High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-12-2019 Srilakshmi Vallurupalli Versus M/s. Aditya Construction Company (India) Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its Director, Thota Satyanarayana & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
05-12-2019 Station House Officer, CBI/ACB/Bangalore Versus B.A. Srinivasan & Another Supreme Court of India
29-11-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Versus Ashok Kumar Kuthiala Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
21-11-2019 Shailesh Jariwala & Others Versus Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Export), Customs House, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-11-2019 Baidyanath Yadav Versus Aditya Narayan Roy & Others Supreme Court of India
19-11-2019 Nasarudheen & Others Versus State of Kerala, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, (Station House Officer, Nemom Police Station) Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
18-11-2019 P. Laxmi Versus Station House Officer, Adhur Police Station High Court of Kerala
18-11-2019 Anup Kiran Versus Punjab State Federation Of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-11-2019 Chandranagar Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd., Palakkad, Represented by Its Secretary, S. Sumisha Versus K.K. Ali High Court of Kerala
15-11-2019 The Management of M/s. Birla Te Versus Chunni Lal High Court of Delhi
13-11-2019 The Management, Palace Nagar Co-Operative House Building Society Limited, Rep., by its President, Salem Versus P. Raja Gounder, Vellalapatti, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-11-2019 Shanmugham & Others Versus State by the Station House Officer, Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-11-2019 M. Yousuf Versus The Station House Officer, Thalassery & Another High Court of Kerala
11-11-2019 O.P. Achuthankutty & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Station House Officer, Thrissur East Police Station Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Another High Court of Kerala
08-11-2019 S. Jayakumar Versus Kothari Mill No.1, Employees Co-operative House, Rep. by its Special Officer, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-11-2019 Tree House Education & Accessories Limited, Mumbai Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
07-11-2019 Manager, Al-Abir Hospital, Kuzhimana P.O, Malappuram District Versus Alavikutty, Naduvathu Chalil House, Malappuram District Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
25-10-2019 Superintending Engineer/ Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (Pw) Slapper & Another Versus Excise & Taxation Officer, Sunder Nagar/Assessing Authority Supreme Court of India
24-10-2019 Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. NDPL House Versus Manoj Misra & Others Supreme Court of India
15-10-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Golla Venkateswaramma Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
15-10-2019 Global United Shipping India (P) Ltd., Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR) Mettukuppam Versus Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund), Chennai Customs House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2019 Renjith Rajan & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Station House Officer, Chengamandad Police Station, Ernakulam District Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Others High Court of Kerala
01-10-2019 C.J. Antony Versus The State of Karnataka, The Station House Officer Gonikoppa Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
26-09-2019 Siya Ram Saran Aditya & Others Versus State of U.P Thru C.B.I., & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-09-2019 B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
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
30-08-2019 A.M.R. Veeraiah & Another Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation by the Station House Officer, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2019 Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Versus M/s. Arrow Devices Pvt. Ld. Represented By Its Managing Director, Shri Aditya Mittal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2019 M/s. Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. Versus The State Of Karnataka & Others Supreme Court of India
20-08-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Konchada Ravi Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2019 Surinder Singh Saini Propritor Versus Blossom Cooperative House Building First Society Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-08-2019 M.K. Ramakrishnan Versus The Management of Express Carriers Ltd., South India House, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2019 M. Chelladurai & Others Versus Jumbo world Holdings Limited, SeaMeadow House, Blackburne Highway, British Virgin Islands & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2019 Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Peringottukara, Thrissur & Another Versus Vasanthi, Thuruthiyil House, Karamukku, Thrissur Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
06-08-2019 M/s. A & J Granites, Kottayam, Represented by Its Managing Partner P.T. Andrews Versus The Station House Officer, Karukachal Police Station, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
30-07-2019 Siddhardha Tiles & Sanitory Pvt Ltd. Versus M/s. GK Print House Pvt Ltd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
24-07-2019 M.K. Muhammed Asharaf & Another Versus Hajj Committee Of India, Represented By Its Chief Executive Officer, Bait-Ul-Hujjaj (Haj House), Mumbai & Others High Court of Kerala
22-07-2019 K. Devamani & Others Versus The State Represented by The Station House Officer, Thirunallar Police Station & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-07-2019 Sidharth Chauhan Versus Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund Through its investment Manger & Lawful attorney, Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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 Rajendran Pillai & Others Versus state represented by the station house officer, kunnicode police station, Kollam, through the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
12-07-2019 Mankind Pharma Limited V/S Lee Pharmaceuticals of Lee House High Court of Delhi
10-07-2019 Small Industries Development Bank of India & Another Versus M/s. Aditya Diamonds & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-07-2019 Gopalacharya Gautam Versus Chief Editor Himachal Dastak Media House & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-06-2019 S. Krishnalal Versus State of Karnataka, Through Station House Officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
06-06-2019 C.K. Lekhamol Versus State of Kerala, Through The Station House Officer, Ernakulam Town North Police Station, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
31-05-2019 Aditya Swarup Pandey Versus Srawasthi Gramin Bank & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
31-05-2019 Beena Rajesh Raika Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-05-2019 Popular Auto Spares Kallarkutty, Rep.by the Managing Partner, Joy.P.U, Pallickal House, Adimali Versus The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Adimali.P.O. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
14-05-2019 Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. & Another Versus Chander Pal Tyagi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-05-2019 Chairman & Dgof, Ordnance Factory Board & Another Versus Cable Tech Machines, CTM House & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
09-05-2019 Birla Corporation Limited Versus Adventz Investments & Holdings Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2019 The Sub Divisional Engineer, Telephone Exchange, BSNL, Thanoor, Malappuram & Others Versus Saidu, C.P, Chithrampalli House, Thanoor, Malappuram Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
26-04-2019 Irfan Pasha Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
25-04-2019 Nanjundaiah Versus The State of Karnataka Rept. by its Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
24-04-2019 B.S. Kamalaksha Versus The State - Through the Station House Officer, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
24-04-2019 Madasamy & Others Versus Krishnagiri LIG House Owner's Association, Krishnagiri & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-04-2019 Abey Josephaged & Another Versus The Station House Officer & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-04-2019 Ashutosh Bansal Versus Birla Institute of Management & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-04-2019 Nisha Singla Versus Adarsh Colony Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
16-04-2019 Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
16-04-2019 Bata India Limited Versus Chawla Boot House & Another High Court of Delhi
10-04-2019 Prabhu Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
10-04-2019 C.K. Chengappa Versus The State, Represented by the Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
09-04-2019 The Kavanoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kavanoor, Malappuram, represented by its Secretary Versus Anchukanda Muhammed Shereef, Nerooke House, Ariyam Para, Vadakkummuri, Areacode, Malappuram Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
09-04-2019 Palakom Abdul Rahiman Versus The Station House Officer Badiadka Police Station, Kerala & Another Supreme Court of India
05-04-2019 Tejram Nagrachi Juvenile, Chhattisgarh & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhakhara High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-04-2019 Kanniyappan Versus The State Rep by The Station House Officer, Thvalakuppam Police Station, Puducherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-04-2019 Sathyaraj & Others Versus The State Represented by: The Station House Officer High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-04-2019 Yogesh Bharti @ Jugnu Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer of Police-Station Sariya, District-Raigarh High Court of Chhattisgarh


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