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



K. Mahendran, Trincomalee v/s Deutche Welle Radio and TV International, Colombo


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

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51225DL2008PTC177405

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

Company & Directors' Information:- RADIO CORPORATION LTD. [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51395UR1936PLC000708

    SC/Appeal No. 194 of 2016, SC/HCLA/5 of 2016, HCT/APP/52 of 2015 & LT Trincomalee No. LT/TC/121/12

    Decided On, 07 August 2019

    At, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka

    By, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SISIRA J. DE ABREW
    By, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE L.T.B. DEHIDENIYA & THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE J.S. THURAIRAJA

    For the Appearing Parrties: Niranjan Arulpragasam, Thilak Wijesinghe with Ms. G.M. Goonesinghe, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Sisira J. de Abrew, J

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court dated 1.7.2014 wherein the learned Judges of the Civil Appellate High Court affirmed the order of the District Judge of Colombo dated 28.1.204 wherein he fixed the matter for ex-parte trial. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court the Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant has appealed to the court. This court by its order dated 14.6.2016 granted leave to appeal on questions of law set out in paragraphs 41(a),(b),(c) and (e) of the Petition of Appeal dated 11.8.2014 which are set out below.

1. 41 (a)(i) - Has the learned trial Judge made a grave procedural error in fixing DC Colombo Case No.6693/Spl for ex-parte trial on 28.1.2004?

2. 41(a)(ii) – In any event, did the learned trial Judge not have jurisdiction to fix DC Colombo Case No.6693/Spl for ex-parte trial on 28.1.2004?

3. 41(a)(iiI) – If so, are the proceedings in Case No.6693/Spl subsequent to 28.1.2004, a nullity?

4. 41(b)(i) – Are the circumstances pleaded in the Petition of the Petitioner filed in WP/HCCA/COL/33/2012/RA constitute special and/or extraordinary circumstances shocking the conscience of court warranting the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by Their Lordships of the High Court of Civil Appeal in favour of the Petitioner?

5. 41(b)(ii) – Do the circumstances pleaded in the Petition ex facie establish that a positive miscarriage of justice has been caused to the Petitioner due to fundamental procedural error caused due to the Order of the learned trial Judge in fixing the DC Colombo Case No.6693/Spl for ex-parte trial on 28.1.2004?

6. 41(b)(iii) – If so, have Their Lordships of the High Court of Civil Appeal erred in law in holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to exercise revisionary jurisdiction due to the alleged delay on the part of the Petitioner?

7. 41(c) – Was the Respondent bound and obliged in law to establish the case against the Petitioner on a balance of probability, even in an ex-parte trial?

8. 41(e) – Is the judgment of Their Lordships of the High Court of Civil Appeal dated 1.7.2014, contrary to well established legal principles?

Facts of this case may be briefly summarized as follows.

The Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff-Respondent) filed a case in the District Court of Colombo moving court to issue an interim injunction and an enjoining order preventing the Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant-Petitioner) selling the bus bearing Registration Number 62-4959. The learned District Judge by order dated 3.10.2003 refused to grant an interim injunction and fixed the matter for answer on 3.12.2003. On 2.12.2003 the Plaintiff-Respondent filed a motion requesting permission of court to file an amended plaint on 3.12.2003. The learned District Judge on 2.12.2003 made an order to file the motion and mention on 3.12.2003. It has to be stated here that no amended plaint was filed on 2.12.2003. The journal entry dated 3.12.2003 carried the following matters. “Amended plaint is being filed. Objections (if any) and answer on 28.1.2004.” According to the above journal entry the answer should be filed on 28.1.2004. On 28.1.2004, the learned District Judge accepted the amended plaint and fixed the case for ex-parte trial. The journal entry dated 28.1.2004 carries the following material. “Objection and answer – No (not filed). The defendant is absent. No legal representation for the defendant. Amended plaint is accepted. Case is fixed for ex-parte trial. Ex-parte trial is fixed for 5.3.2004.” There is nothing to indicate that the amended plaint was accepted on 3.12.2003. According to the above journal entry the amended plaint was accepted only on 28.1.2004. What is the basis on which that the learned District Judge on 28.1.2004 fixed the case for ex-parte trial? If the answer had been filed when the case was called on 28.1.2004, the learned District Judge could not have fixed the case ex-parte trial even if the Defendant-Petitioner was absent and unrepresented. If the answer had been filed when the case was called on 28.1.2004, it would have been the duty of the learned District Judge to fix the case for trial even if the Defendant-Petitioner was absent and unrepresented. Then what was the basis on which the case was fixed for ex-parte trial when it was called on 28.1.2004? It appears that the basis was the failure to file the answer. Could the Defendant-Petitioner have filed the answer on 28.1.2004? Since the amended plaint has been accepted by court on 28.1.2004, the Defendant-Petitioner could not have filed an answer on the amended plaint on 28.1.2004. Since the court has accepted the amended plaint on 28.1.2004, it was the duty of court to have given an opportunity to the Defendant-Petitioner to file an answer on the amended plaint. But the learned District Judge did not give this opportunity to the Defendant-Petitioner and fixed the case for ex-parte trial. Therefore it is seen from the above material that the answer on the amended plaint was not due on 28.1.2004. The learned District Judge on 28.1.2004 could not have fixed the case for ex-parte trial even on the basis that the Defendant-Petitioner was absent and unrepresented because the acceptance of the amended plaint has taken place only on 28.1.2004. When the amended plaint is accepted, the original plaint does not exist. Then it becomes the duty of court to act under Section 55 of the Civil Procedure Code and serve summons on the defendant if the defendant is absent in court. If the defendant is present in court, the court should give him an opportunity to file his answer on the amended plaint. The learned District Judge has not taken the above steps. Therefore it is seen from the above material that the District Court has not fixed a date to file answer on the amended plaint. The learned District Judge on the day that the amended plaint was accepted without fixing a date to file an answer, has fixed the case for ex-parte trial which is wrong. At this stage it is relevant to consider section 84 of the Civil Procedure Code which reads as follows. If the defendant fails to file his answer on or before the day fixed for the filing of the answer, or on or before the day fixed for the subsequent filing of the answer or having filed his answer, if he fails to appear on the day fixed (or the hearing of the action, and if the court is satisfied that the defendant has been duly served with summons, or has received due notice of the day fixed for the subsequent filing of the answer, or of the day fixed for the hearing of the action, as the case may be, and if, on the occasion of such default of the defendant, the plaintiff appears, then the court shall proceed to hear the case ex parte forthwith, or on such other day as the court may fix. Under Section 84 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court is empowered to fix a case for ex-parte trial if the defendant fails to file his answer on or before the day fixed for the filling of the answer or on or before the day fixed for the subsequent filing of the answer. This is one of the grounds discussed in Section 84 of the Civil Procedure Code. After the amended plaint was accepted, did the court fix a date for filing of the answer? The answer is clearly in the negative. It has to be noted here that after accepting the amended plaint on 28.1.2004, the court without fixing a date to file the answer, fixed the case for ex-parte trial. There was no opportunity for the Defendant-Petitioner to file his answer on the amended plaint since the court has failed to fix a date for the answer on the amended plaint. Therefore the argument that the Defendant-Petitioner has failed to file his answer on or before the day fixed for filing of the answer or on or before the day fixed for the subsequent filing of the answer cannot be accepted. For the above reasons I hold that the Defendant-Petitioner has not violated Section 84 of the Civil Procedure Code; that the learned District Judge on 28.1.2004 could not have fixed the case for ex-parte trial; and that the order made by the learned District Judge on 28.1.2004 fixing the case for ex-parte trial without giving an opportunity for the defendant to file his answer is wrong, a nullity and has violated a fundamental rule. Failure by the District Court to give an opportunity for the Defendant-Petitioner to file his answer upon acceptance of the amended plaint is a violation of a fundamental rule.

For the benefit of the trial Judges and legal practitioners of this country I would like to set down here the following guidelines.

1. When an amended plaint is accepted by court, the court cannot on the same day fix the case for ex-parte trial on the basis that the defendant is absent or he did not file the answer.

2. When an amended plaint is accepted by court, the court must give an opportunity for the defendant to file his answer.

3. When an amended plaint is accepted by court, it becomes the duty of court to summon the defendant if he is absent in court because the amended plaint has to be considered as a new plaint.

Learned President’s Counsel for the Defendant-Petitioner admitted in court that the application filed by the Defendant-Petitioner to purge the default under Section 86(2) of the Civil Procedure Code has been rejected by the District Court. For the aforementioned reasons, I hold that the order made by the District Court on 28.1.2004 fixing the case for ex-parte trial is wrong and a nullity.

The learned District Judge took up the ex-parte trial and delivered the judgment dated 20.4.2004 giving relief prayed for in paragraph (a) of the amended plaint. Then the learned District Judge by the said judgment ordered the Defendant-Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,344,192/- and Rs.3000/- per day from 4.12.2003 until vehicle bearing registration No.62-4959 is returned to the Plaintiff-Respondent. The learned District Judge by the said Judgment dated 20.4.2004 has not granted the other reliefs claimed by the Plaintiff-Respondent.

The reliefs claimed by the Plaintiff-Respondent that he (the Plaintiff-Respondent) is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. 62-4959 and that the order compelling the Defendant-Petitioner to hand over the said vehicle to the Plaintiff-Respondent were not granted.

It is undisputed that the Plaintiff-Respondent purchased the vehicle on a hire purchase agreement signed with the Defendant-Petitioner and that the Defendant-Petitioner seized the said vehicle from the possession of the Plaintiff-Respondent as he failed to pay the monthly installments. This has been admitted by the Plaintiff-Respondent in her evidence. The interim injunction claimed by the Plaintiff-Respondent in her original plaint directing the Defendant-Petitioner not to sell the above vehicle was rejected by the learned District Judge by his order dated 3.10.2003. Learned President’s Counsel for the Defendant-Petitioner submitted that the Defendant-Petitioner sold the vehicle since the above relief claimed by the Plaintiff-Respondent had been rejected by court and as such the said vehicle is not in the possession of the Defendant-Petitioner. Learned President’s Counsel for the Defendant-Petitioner submitted that in terms of the ex-parte judgment of the District Court, the Defendant-Petitioner has to give Rs.3000/- per day to the Plaintiff-Respondent until the vehicle is returned to the Plaintiff-Respondent but the Defendant-Petitioner is not in a position to hand over the vehicle since it has been sold. Thus it is seen that if the ex-parte judgment of the District Court dated 20.4.2004 is affirmed, the Defendant-Petitioner has to pay Rs.3000/- per day to the Plaintiff-Respondent without any terminal date. This ex-parte judgment of the District Court dated 20.4.2004 has been delivered as a result of the order of the District Court dated 28.1.2004 fixing the case for ex-parte trial.

I have to ask the question whether the order dated 28.1.2004 and the ex-parte judgment dated 20.4.2004 shock the conscience of court. I have to answer this question in the affirmative. If an order or a judgment of the trial court shocks the conscience of court, the appellate court should, in revision, interfere with such an order or judgment. This view is supported by the following judicial decisions.

Bank of Ceylon Vs Kaleel and Others [2004] 1 SLR 284 at page 287(CA) it was held as follows. “In any event, for this Court to exercise revisionary jurisdiction the order challenged must have occasioned a failure of justice and be manifestly erroneous which go beyond an error or defect or irregularity that an ordinary person would instantly react to it. In other words the order complained of is of such a nature which would have shocked the conscience of Court.” Vanik Incorporation Ltd Vs Jayasekara [1997] 2 SLR 365 (CA) Justice Edussuriya held as follows. “Revisionary powers should be exercised where a miscarriage of justice has occurred due to a fundamental rule of procedure being violated, but only when a strong case is made out amounting to a positive miscarriage of justice.”

The learned Judges of the Civil Appellate High Court have concluded that failure on the part of the learned District Judge to give an opportunity for the Defendant-Petitioner to file an answer has caused a grave injustice but refused to intervene with the order of the learned District Judge on the ground of delay on the part of the Defendant-Petitioner. I note that the revision application has been filed in the Civil Appellate High Court after eight years of the order fixing

SC Appeal 121/2016

11

the case for ex-parte trial. As I pointed out earlier, the Defendant-Petitioner, in terms of the ex-parte judgment, has to pay Rs.3000/- per day to the Plaintiff-Respondent without any terminal date. As a result of a judgment or an order in the lower court if a party in a case has to make payments without a terminal date, delay in seeking revisionary jurisdiction of the Appellate Court should not operate as a bar for the Appellate Court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction. This view is supported by the judgment of the GPS de Silva CJ in the case of Gnanapantithen and Another Vs Balanayagam and Another [1998] I SLR 391 wherein His Lordship held as follows. “There was a total want of investigation of title. The circumstances were strongly indicative of a collusive action. In the result, there was a miscarriage of justice in the case, and the appellants were entitled to a revision of the judgment of the District Judge notwithstanding delay in seeking relief. The question whether delay is fatal to an application in revision depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Having regard to the very special and. exceptional circumstances of the case the appellants were entitled to the exercise of the revisionary powers of the Court of Appeal.” I have earlier held that the order of the learned District Judge fixing the case for ex-parte trial is a nullity. If an order of lower court is a nullity, the Appellate Court should interfere with such an order in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction. In the present case the Civil Appellate High Court having observed the fact that failure on the part of the learned District Judge to give an opportunity for the Defendant-Petitioner to file his answer has caused grave injustice to the Defendant-Petitioner refused to intervene on the ground of delay. When I consider all the aforementioned matters, I hold that the learned Judges of the Civil Appellate High Court were wrong when they refused to interfere with the order of the learned District Judge dated 28.1.2004. For the above reasons, I hold that the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court dated 1.7.2014 is wrong and should be set aside.

For the aforementioned reasons, I exercising the appellate powers of this court, set aside the order of the learned District Judge dated 28.1.2004 fixing the case for ex-parte trial. Since I set aside the said order of the learned District Judge, the ex-parte judgment of the District Court dated 20.4.2004 should also be set aside and is hereby set aside. Since the order dated 28.1.2004 of the learned District Judge fixing the case for ex-parte trial is set aside, the judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court dated 1.7.2014 which has the effect of affirming the said order of the District Court is also set aside.

I direct the learned District Judge to give an opportunity to the Defendant-Petitioner to file his answer on the amended plaint and proceed with the trial without delay.

The Defendant-Petitioner in his petition of appeal filed in this court has moved for an order to return the money that the he has paid to the Plaintiff-Respondent in terms of the ex-parte judgment dated 20.4.2004. Since we set aside the ex-parte judgment dated 20.4.2004 the payments made in terms of said judgment should also be returned by the Plaintiff-Respondent to the Defendant-Petitioner. We are unable to determine the amount paid by the Defendant-Petitioner to the Plaintiff-Res

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

pondent as the relevant material has not been attached to the petition of appeal. Therefore we cannot state the amount in this judgment. The Defendant-Petitioner is entitled to recover the amount he had paid to the Plaintiff-Respondent in terms of the ex-parte judgment. The learned District Judge at the end of the main trial is directed to calculate this amount on the evidence led before the District Court and make an appropriate order. I would like to state here that this judgment should not be considered as a licence to cure defects in cases where there is delay in seeking revisionary jurisdiction of the Appellate Court because each case must be considered on its own merit. In view of the conclusion reached above, I answer the above questions of law as follows. The questions of law set out in paragraph 41(a) (i) and (ii) of the petition of appeal are answered in the affirmative. The questions of law set out in paragraph 41(a)(iii) of the petition of appeal are answered as follows. “The orders of the learned District Judge dated 28.1.2004 and 20.4.2004 are wrong.” The questions of law set out in paragraph 41(b)(i) are answered as follows. “The orders of the learned District Judge dated 28.1.2004 and 20.4.2004 shock conscience of court.” The questions of law set out in paragraph 41(b)(ii) and (iii) are answered in the affirmative. The question of law set out in paragraph 41(c) does not arise for consideration. The question of law set out in paragraph 41(e) is answered as follows. The judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court dated 1.7.2004 is wrong. The order of the learned District Judge dated 28.1.2004 fixing the case for ex-parte trial is set aside. The ex-parte judgment of the District Court dated 20.4.2004 is set aside. The judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court dated 1.7.2014 is set aside.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

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
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
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
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
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
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others 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
13-03-2020 Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd. V/S Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi High Court of Delhi
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 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
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
30-01-2020 Next Radio Limited, Mumbai & Others V/S Prasar Bharti And Others Competition Commission of India
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 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 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
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
09-12-2019 Unibros Versus All India Radio & Another High Court of Delhi
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
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
21-10-2019 A.S. Vijaya, Draughtsman, Gr.I, Civil Construction Wing (E), All India Radio, Bangalore Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting ‘A' Wing, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
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
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
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
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
28-05-2019 Shaji Prakash Versus The Director General, All India Radio, Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India), New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
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 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
05-04-2019 Mahendra Valji Rathod Versus National Radio and Electronics Company High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-04-2019 Manorangan Das, Programme Executive, Prasar Bharati, All India Radio, Assam & Another Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Information & Broad Casting, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
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 Ircon International Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader High Court Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-03-2019 Ulo Systems LLC, Noida Versus DCIT (International Taxation) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi
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 International Consolidated Business Pty Ltd. Versus S.C. Johnson & Son Inc Court of Appeal of New Zealand