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



Jay Haresh Somaiya v/s Narcotic Control Bureau


Company & Directors' Information:- G S CONTROL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29199DL2002PTC118048

Company & Directors' Information:- J S CONTROL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31401MH1984PTC034570

Company & Directors' Information:- JAY AND CO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1996PTC082695

Company & Directors' Information:- JAY CORP;ORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1950PLC007984

    Bail Appln. No. 602 of 2020

    Decided On, 02 September 2020

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

    For the Petitioner: Akshay Bhandari, Digvijay Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: Subhash Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel, Shashwat Bansal, Advocate.



Judgment Text


[Hearing Held Through Video Conferencing]

(Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking bail in connection with complaint case bearing S.C. No.107/2018 filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (hereafter ‘NCB’) against the petitioner and six other accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter ‘NDPS Act’).

2. It is alleged in the complaint that on 05.11.2017, a secret information was received by one of the intelligence officers of NCB that two persons, Rafik and Guljar aged about twenty five years and twenty two years respectively, would arrive at Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station for their onward journey to Mumbai in the evening of 05.11.2017. According to the information, they would be carrying charas in their bag and their search would yield a huge quantity of charas. According to NCB, this information was telephonically communicated to the Superintendent, Delhi Zonal Unit, NCB at about 9:00 AM in the morning. The information was subsequently reduced in writing by Shri Rajeev Shehrawat, IO, NCB. The Superintendent, NCB thereafter directed Shri Anand Kumar, IO to constitute a team and take necessary action in accordance with law.

3. NCB claims that on the basis of the said instructions, a raiding team was constituted and after collecting the field testing kit, electronic kit, electronic weighing machine and other accessories, the raiding team reached Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station. According to NCB, raiding team became aware that Rafik and Guljar were proceeding to Mumbai by train no. 12954. The raiding team reached at platform no. 3 at about 15:45 hours and at 16:35 hours noticed three persons including two who conformed to the description of Rafik and Guljar, coming down the stairs to the platform. Another person, who was accompanying them, was carrying a trolley bag in his hand. It is stated that the raiding team of NCB also joined two other officials from the Railway Protection Force as independent witnesses.

4. The said three persons were accosted and inquiries made from them revealed that their names were Rafik, Guljar and Ramdev. Ramdev stated that he was a travel agent and the trolley bag carried by him belonged to Rafik. He stated that he come to the platform to show Rafik and Guljar the train on which they were booked. Rafik also acknowledged that the trolley bag being carried by Ramdev belonged to him.

5. According to NCB, notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served on the Rafik, Guljar and Ramdev. They were searched but nothing incriminating was found on their person. However, on searching the trolley bag, it was found that bottom of the said bag was covered with the card board. On removing the card board, it was found that brown colour packets were concealed in the bottom of the trolley bag. In all twenty seven bags were recovered from trolley bag. According to NCB, all the packets were similar. They were cut and were found to be contain a dark coloured substance in semi solid form. The small quantity of dark coloured brown substance was taken from each of the packets and tested with the help of field testing kit. It is alleged that on testing, the said substance was found to be charas. The packets were weighed and it was found that the total quantity of charas recovered was 6.2 kgs. The substances in all the twenty seven packets were similar and therefore, the same was mixed and two samples weighing 25 grams each were drawn and placed in a zip lock pouches. According to NCB, the said samples were sent for chemical analysis which also confirmed that the substances recovered was charas.

6. According to NCB, notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were served on Rafik, Guljar and Ramdev and their statements were recorded. Statements of Rafik and Guljar were recorded on 06.11.2017. Rafik, in his statement (which the NCB claims, he tendered voluntarily), stated that he was a resident of village Hurla, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. He stated that he never studied in school. Initially, he used to look after the cattle (buffaloes) at home. Thereafter, for about 5 to 6 years, he was engaged in the work of transporting sand and grit on mules. And, since the past six months, he was driving a tourist taxi. He stated that near about 4/5 months ago he met a tourist named Jay Somaiya (petitioner herein). He stated that subsequently on two or three occasions Jay Somaiya had used his taxi. He claimed that the petitioner had taken his telephone number and used to call him whenever he used to visit Bhuntar and he would drive him to his destination. He claimed that the petitioner had asked him to work for him and on one occasion petitioner gave him Rs.12,000/- and asked him to carry a packet of charas to Delhi. He stated that thereafter on another occasion around Diwali he had carried his luggage to Mumbai and handed over the same to one person named Abdul and he paid him a sum of Rs.40,000/- in cash. He stated that on 03.11.2017, the petitioner had called him to Kasol Village and handed over a packet for being transported to Mumbai. He was instructed to hand over the same to a person named Raunak and was assured that he would be paid a sum of Rs.80,000/-. Rafik stated that on this occasion he asked his cousin Guljar to accompany him and promised him to pay Rs.40,000/-. He stated that both of them reached Delhi in the morning on 05.11.2017 and checked into a hotel near Hazarat Nizamuddin Railway Station. He claims that he gave three packets in Delhi to a man named Gaurav and got Rs.15,000/- from him. Thereafter, from the said money, he purchased train tickets to Mumbai from a travel agent named Ramdev. However, they were stopped by the NCB team on the platform before they could board the train.

7. Rafik further stated that the petitioner is a resident of Mumbai and is currently staying in Choj Village, Kullu District, Himachal Pradesh and the charas recovered from his possession was handed over to him by the petitioner for being delivered to a person named Raunak in Mumbai. However, he did not know Raunak’s telephone number. Rafik alleged that the petitioner carries on the business of dealing in charas and he used to purchase the said contraband from Ramesh, Neelchand @ Neelu and Purshottam @ Kalu.

8. On the basis of the recovery and the voluntary statement made by Rafik, he was arrested at 1700 hours on 06.11.2017. Guljar was shown to be arrested an hour earlier.

9. The officials of NCB reached the residence of Bebo Ram, Choj, Manikaran, Kullu at about 05:45 a.m. on 06.11.2017. According to NCB, the petitioner opened the door and on enquiring identified himself. His room was searched and his wife and his son were also present in the room. Thereafter, a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was served on him and according to NCB, his voluntary statement was recorded on that date.

10. He disclosed that he had come to Himachal Pradesh for the first time in the year 2015 and had met Sh. Neel Chand of Choj Village and Purushottam @ Kalu of Malana. He stated that he was already a charas addict and knew that illicit trafficking of charas yields quick and hefty amount of money. He disclosed that he started buying charas from Neel Chand and Purushottam and selling the same to Shaunak, Vishwendra, Abbas and Samir of Mumbai. He stated that he did not know the exact address of the said persons, but they were residing in Andheri (West), Mumbai and they were his friends. He stated that on this occasion he had arrived in Kullu on 01.11.2017 and was staying in the house of Bebo Ram on rent at Choj Village of Kullu. He stated that he had bought half a kg of illicit charas from Neel Chand and Purushottam and he had sent one kg charas each from Kullu to Mumbai through Rafik and Guljar who were residents of Nagwain, District Mandi. The petitioner also disclosed that he had been using Rafik to carry the illicit consignment of one kg of charas which he had bought from Neel Chand and Purushottam @ Kalu. He stated that Rafik and Guljar worked as carriers for illicit trafficking of charas and also carry charas from Kullu to Mumbai. He stated that many people from Mumbai send orders for illicit charas from Kullu and Rafik and Guljar carry the same after purchasing it from Neel Chand and Purushottam.

11. He further stated that he used to deposit the money of illicit charas in the bank accounts of Neel Chand and his son Ramesh Kumar. He also disclosed the bank accounts of Neel Chand and his son Ramesh. He also furnished the mobile numbers of Rafik, Neel Chand, Purushottam and Guljar. He also disclosed the full name of Abbass as Abbass Zawwae Hussain Sayyed and also disclosed his full address. Thereafter, NCB also issued notice under Section 67 of the NDPS to Ramesh Kumar (son of Neel Chand) and his statement was also recorded. Both the petitioner and Ramesh Kumar were arrested on 06.11.2017.

12. Another statement of the petitioner was recorded on 08.11.2017. In this statement, the petitioner allegedly disclosed that he had purchased 6.2 kgs of charas. 3.2 kgs had been purchased from Purusottam @ Kalu and 3 kgs from Neel Chand. He stated that out of the above, 2 kgs was supplied to Abbass and half kg was to be supplied to Gaurav at Delhi. 2 kgs was for petitioner and the balance was for one Hiten Sondhi of Goa. He stated that he used to pay money to Neel Chand and his family members in their bank accounts and whenever he visited in Himachal, he paid him hard cash. He stated for charas purchased from Kalu he would always sent money in cash via courier boys who would come from Mumbai to deliver the charas. The payment was made in advance for the next consignment. He stated that in all he had paid Rs.40 lacs to Neel Chand in the last three years and about Rs.20 lacs to Kalu Ram.

13. It is seen that the NCB’s case rests largely on the disclosure statements made by Rafik and the petitioner. It is stated that both, Rafik and the petitioner, have since retracted from their statements. The question whether such statements are admissible has been referred to by the Supreme Court to a Larger Bench in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu: (2013) 16 SCC 31. It is also well settled that even if such self-incriminating statements are accepted as admissible, they are a weak form of evidence and can be used only to corroborate other evidence.

14. In the present case, it is submitted on behalf of NCB that there is other material evidence to convict the petitioner and his statements are corroborated. In particular, the NCB relies upon the bank statements of Neel Chand and his family members where certain funds are shown to have been deposited in cash. NCB also relies on CDRs of the calls between the petitioner and Neel Chand and the petitioner and Rafik.

15. It does not appear that the cash deposits in the accounts of Neel Chand or his family members have been identified to correspond with any of the transactions. Further, there is also no material to establish that the cash deposited in the accounts of Neel Chand and his family members at Mumbai or at Goa has been deposited by the petitioner. The learned counsel for NCB had stated that there are some entries which reflect cash deposits and mentioned the name Jay and this according to him would clearly establish that the petitioner had deposited some cash in the bank accounts. However, it is not disputed that the deposit slips which would indicate whether any deposits have been made by the petitioner or not, have not been collected.

16. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner, in his disclosure statement, had recorded on 06.01.2017 merely accepted that he had purchased 1 kg of charas. This does not correspond to the recovery made from Rafik. This Court had also noticed that the said statement had also mentioned names of other persons who were involved, namely, Gaurav, Abbass, Vishwendra, Samir and Shaunak. However, apart from Gaurav, none of them have been arrayed as accused. It also does not appear whether any investigation has been done to ascertain whether they had been supplied any charas either by the petitioner or by Rafik.

17. It is material to note that Gaurav has been discharged. Although the petitioner has also allegedly disclosed that he had purchased half a kg of charas from Purushottam @ Kalu, he has not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint. It is contended that he could not be traced. Thus his involvement in this case also cannot be established. Although Neel Chand has been arrayed as an accused no. 7, he has not been arrested and he has been absconding.

18. It is, thus, seen that the sources for purchasing of charas disclosed by the petitioner have not been established, inasmuch as, Purushottam @ Kalu has also not been arrayed as an accused and Neel Chand is absconding.

19. Although it is claimed that the petitioner had purchased 6.2 kgs of charas that was recovered from Rafik, there does not appear to be any evidence to establish the payment of consideration for the said purchase either to Neelchand @ Neelu and Purshottam @ Kalu. The cash deposits made into the account of Neelchand do not correspond alleged purchase of 3.2 kgs. of charas after 01.11.2017.

20. Mr Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that although Ramesh S/o Neelchand was arrested but he has since been released by the court after examining the material available on record and his involvement in this case. Although the prosecution’s case is premised on the basis that the petitioner is a charas addict and that is a reason that he had engaged in the business of trafficking of drugs, there is no medical evidence on record to establish that the petitioner is a drug addict.

21. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner may be acquitted. Admittedly, the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and there is no reason to believe that he would commit a similar offence, if released. It appears to be the prosecution’s case th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

at the petitioner had begun dealing in drugs to feed his addiction. But, as noticed earlier, there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner is a drug addict. 22. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of an equivalent amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. This is also subject to the following further conditions:- a) the petitioner shall provide a contact number and ensure that he is reachable on it all times; b) the petitioner shall mark his presence before the concerned SHO of the local police station where he resides on first Monday of each calendar month; c) the petitioner shall telephonically report to the concerned IO on the first Monday of each calendar month and disclose his whereabouts; d) the petitioner shall ensure that he is available in all proceedings before the concerned court; and, e) the petitioner shall not try to contact any of the person named in his disclosure statement either directly or indirectly. 23. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 24. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are only prima facie and solely for the purposes of examining whether the petitioner ought to be released on bail. The Trial Court shall consider the complaint and evaluate the evidence uninfluenced by any observations or findings in this order.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-09-2020 Jeet Ram Versus The Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Supreme Court of India
01-09-2020 Sagar Sitaram Mitre Versus Bhanu Pratap, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau Sub-Zone, Goa In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
24-08-2020 Sonia Shamrao Naik Gaonkar Versus Narcotics Control Bureau High Court of Delhi
11-08-2020 Jai Bhagwan @ Bhedha Bhai Versus N.C.B. (Narcotics Control Bureau) High Court of Delhi
11-08-2020 P.V. Rao, Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai Versus Anil Baburao Pansare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-07-2020 Nitesh Amrut Bhai Patel & Another Versus Narcotic Control Bureau & Another High Court of Delhi
03-07-2020 M/s. Shri Balaji Wash Versus Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Another High Court of Delhi
09-06-2020 State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, O/o. Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu, Chennai Versus M/s. National Pharmaceuticals [A-3], A Division of Rider Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Kamalchand Jain, Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 The Superintendent, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Versus Mehul Bafna High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-05-2020 Shivaraj URS Versus Union of India, Narcotic Control Bureau, Represented by Learned Special Public Prosecutor, K.N. Mohan High Court of Karnataka
26-05-2020 Rajan Arjunan Versus M/s. KLM Axiva Finvest Ltd. Kattappana, Represented by Its Credit Control Officer, Bineesh Mathew & Another High Court of Kerala
22-05-2020 Anant Vardhan Pathak @ Anant Satish Pathak Versus Union of India [Narcotic Control Bureau High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-05-2020 Okafor Chukwuka Ugochukwu & Another Versus Narcotics Control Bureau High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 M/s. Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd., (Formerly known as Visteon Powertrain Control Systems India Private Limited) Keelakaranai Village, Malrosapuram Post, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu District V/S The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle - I (3), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Versus The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, South Zonal Unit, Chennai – 90 High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 All India Drugs Control Officers Confederation, Rep. by its President, M. Dhilip Kumar Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 Jay Prashanth Darjee Versus The of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Health, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
07-02-2020 Thounaojam Lemba Singh Versus The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Manipur High Court of Manipur
03-02-2020 Jay Prakash Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan
30-01-2020 G.S. Mani Versus Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai & Others National Green Tribunal Southern Zone Chennai
27-01-2020 G. Margaret Malini & Others Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, (Under the control of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 Muhammed Ameen & Another Versus The Narcotic Control Bureau, Cochin, Represented by Its Intelligence Officer, Through Its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
27-11-2019 Jay @ Jayesh Mahadevbhai Bharwad (Labariya) Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
26-11-2019 Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Versus B. Heera Naik & Others Supreme Court of India
25-11-2019 Narcotics Control Bureau Versus Lee Wei Qi High Court of Delhi
06-11-2019 J. Sathish Versus The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Guindy, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-10-2019 Arun Kumar Saraf Versus Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Others High Court of Delhi
16-10-2019 Kenneth Stanley (alias) Ken Male (South African National, bearing Passport No.408381458) Versus Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-10-2019 Suganthi Sheeba Versus The Director of Drug Control, Siva Sankaran Road, Teynampet, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2019 M/s. I.N. Agrovet Products & Another Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Pollution Control Board, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-09-2019 Puducherry State National Vector Borne Disease (Filaria – Malaria) Control, Programme Adi-Dravidar Field Workers Welfare Association, Represented by its Secretary S. Saravanaperumal, Puducherry Versus The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Government of Puducherry, Office of the Co-operative Department, Puducherry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-2019 Puran Chand Versus Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
12-09-2019 Jay Mukeshbhai Sejpal Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-09-2019 Ozy Chukuwudu @ Uzo Chukuwudu Versus Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau Bangalore Zonal Unit High Court of Karnataka
04-09-2019 Jay Kant Mishra Versus M/s. S. Chand & Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
21-08-2019 Madurai Farooq Ahmed Versus The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2019 M/s. Porwal Sales Versus M/s. Flame Control Industries High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-07-2019 Jay Anant Sagar Co-op. Housing Society Versus The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-05-2019 Rafiq Qureshi Versus Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit Supreme Court of India
06-05-2019 Satyam Kumar Sah & Others Versus Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) High Court of Delhi
26-04-2019 Maiku Lal Sen Versus Jay Jay Ram Upadhyay & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
08-04-2019 T. Packiyanathan @ Nathan & Another Versus Intelligence Officer, Narcortic Control Bureau, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-04-2019 Grace Rai @ Rose Versus Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau Bengaluru Zonal Unit High Court of Karnataka
19-03-2019 Ramesh Kumar Versus Norcotics Control Bureau High Court of Delhi
14-03-2019 Dr. Shobana Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by M. Rani, M. Pharm Drugs Inspector, O/o. The Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Zone II, D.M.S.Campus, Teynampet High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-03-2019 Board of Control For Cricket In India & Others Versus Cricket Association of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
21-02-2019 Karan Mahajan & Others Versus Board of Control for Cricket in India & Others High Court of Delhi
18-02-2019 Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Versus Sterlite Industries Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
18-02-2019 Wasib Khan Liaquat Ali Versus State by the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1, Chennai Versus M/s. J. Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2019 M/s. Jay A.R. Enterprises, Partnership firm having Office at No.7, Chennai Versus M/s. Scraft Traders, Rep by its Proprietor, Kolkotta High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2019 M/s. Pieco India Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Shatabdi Switchgears & Control Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
19-01-2019 Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Versus Kamza Zakeeya & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-12-2018 M/s. Shri Sai Industries, Through Proprietor Money Nair & Others Versus M/s. Power & Control Transformer Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-11-2018 The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Versus S. Yogadasan @ Kutty & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2018 B. Janaka Sankar Versus The Central Pollution Control Board of India, Represented by its Authorized Officer, Ministry of Environment & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
19-11-2018 Sajjad Husain Advocate Versus U.P. Pollution Control Board High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
29-10-2018 Sanjeev Wasan Versus Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Through its Drugs Inspector Navneet Pratap Singh Central Drugs Standards Control Organization, (CDSCO) In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
25-10-2018 M/s. Jay Bhagwati Construction Co. Versus Haware Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-10-2018 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Chetas Control Systems Pvt Ltd Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune
15-10-2018 John Susai Navies Mannala @ Mannala Versus State represented by the Intelligence Officer, NCB (Narcotic Control Board), Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-10-2018 M/s. Jay Madhok Energy Private Limited Versus Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
05-10-2018 M/s. Vinayak Manu Trade Private Limited, Jaipur & Others Versus State represented by, The Drugs Inspector, Intelligence Wing, Office of the Directorate of Drugs Control, Teynampet, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2018 M/s. Zeus Pharmaceuticals, Rep. by Mr.Raghu Raghav Balasaria, Himachal Pradesh & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu represented by R. Kannan, Drugs Inspector, Thiruvallur Range, Office of the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Thiruvallur Zone, Thiruvallur High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2018 Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Regional Intelligence Unit, Tiruvandram Versus Saraswathi @ Kamalam & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-09-2018 Poddar Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd., Uttarakhand & Another Versus State represented by Drugs Inspector Aranthangi Range O/o, the Asst. Director of Drugs Control, Thanjavur Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-09-2018 Dcit Corporate Circle 2(1) Versus Faurecia Emiision Control Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
20-08-2018 Ikechukwu Chukwubuikem Stanley & Another Versus Narcotic Control Bureau High Court of Delhi
16-08-2018 Jay Prakash Agarwal Versus Nitco Roadways & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-08-2018 Dcit, Chennai Versus Inzi Control India Limited Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
09-08-2018 Board of Control for Cricket in India & Others Versus Cricket Association of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
03-08-2018 Dr. Jay Prakash Gupta Versus Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-08-2018 M/s. Jay Enterprise Versus The Income Tax Officer Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rajkot
18-07-2018 Mak Control & Systems (P) Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Coimbatore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
11-07-2018 Jay Narayan Sarma Versus Honsha Gas Agency & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-07-2018 Joyce Karoung Versus Narcotics Control Bureau High Court of Delhi
01-06-2018 Jay Kochhar Versus UCO Bank High Court of Delhi
07-05-2018 Executive Officer, Cuttak Municipal Corporation Versus Member Secretary, State Pollution Control Board & Another High Court of Orissa
22-03-2018 Jothi carrying on business under the name and style of Jay Kay International, Erode Versus Vinodini & Sons rep.by its Partner Nitin H. Shah High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-03-2018 S. Selva Rajendran Versus Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Rep. by it's Chairman, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-03-2018 Board of Control For Cricket in India Versus Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
12-03-2018 Emmanuel Aremu @ Ikechuk Wu Ugochukwu @ Raymond Ugochukwu Versus Intellegence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau Bangalore Zonal Unit Ramanna Garden, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
07-03-2018 Surya Alloy Industries Versus Jay Prestressed Products Limited High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-02-2018 Jay Amitbhai Shah Versus Rohini Singh & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
09-02-2018 Narasimhalu Versus State by Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
30-01-2018 State of Gujarat Versus Bharat Pest Control Supreme Court of India
12-01-2018 M/s. Anubhav Builders, Maharashtra Versus Jay Shital C.H.S. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-01-2018 Hiken Naresh Shah Versus The Board of Control for Cricket in India a Society High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-12-2017 Ibrahim Versus State by Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-12-2017 D. Ramakrishnan & Another Versus Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2017 Telangana State Pollution Control Board Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions) In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
15-11-2017 M/s. Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd., Represented by its General Manager-Commercial, C. Bhaskar Rao Versus The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-11-2017 M/s. Jay Jay Shirts P Ltd Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, & Another Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
24-10-2017 Narayanaswamy & Others Versus State by Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Represented by Government Pleader, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
18-10-2017 Commissioner of Customs (Import) V/S Jay Gigev Textiles Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
17-10-2017 The Board of Control for Cricket In India, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Rahul Johri Versus S. Sreesanth & Others High Court of Kerala
10-10-2017 Narender Kumar Shah Proprietor M/s. Jay Bharat Steel Versus Sai Kripa Engineering Works High Court of Delhi
15-09-2017 Pollution Control Comm. & Anr. Versus Polygel Ind. Pvt Ltd & Ors. Supreme Court of India
08-09-2017 Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, represented by S.S. Doke Versus M/s. Deepak Fertilisers and Petro Chemicals Corporation Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-09-2017 Power Control Corporation Versus Commr. of Central Excise, Jaipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi