for example: TATA AIG

  for example: Indian Contract Act

  for example: Ratan Tata

  for example: Negotiable Instruments Act

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



K. N. Mehta v/s The Director Of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi And Others


Company & Directors' Information:- TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2006PTC235208

Company & Directors' Information:- MEHTA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH1940PTC003063

Company & Directors' Information:- MEHTA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17100MH1948PTC006191

    Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1975

    Decided On, 20 May 1982

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE CHARANJIT TALWAR

    For the Appellant: M. C. Bhandare Sr. Advocate, with Mrs. S. Bhandare, Advocates. For the Respondent: D. P. Wadhwa, Madan Lokur and Atul Kumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

These are two connected appeals filed under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (herein called the act) challenging the legality of order passed on 27th January, 1975 by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (herein called the 'Board') upholding the finding of the Director of Enforcement that Mr. K. N. Mehta (appellant) in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1975) and his wife, Mrs. Saraswati Mehta (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1975) were guilty of contravening the provisions of the Act. The imposition of penalty amounts on different counts is thus sought to be set aside.


2. The Director of Enforcement had originally issued 11 show cause notices to Mr. Mehta and six show cause notices to Mrs. Saraswati Mehta for having dealt in foreign exchange in contravention of various provisions of the Act. After adjudication Mrs. Mehta was found guilty of one charge only; Mr. Mehta, however was found guilty in respect of the charges covered under four show cause notices. The Board while maintaining the order of the Director on three charges, set aside his conviction and penalty for offence covered and shows cause notice No. 7. For the remaining charges he was directed to pay penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on each count. Mrs. Mehta's appeal, however, was rejected and the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon her was maintained.


3. The Director proceeded on the basis that the appellants were foreign nationals who not having domiciled in India were entitled to maintain and operate Bank accounts abroad by virtue of Reserve Bank Notification No. FERA/23/47/RB dated 8th July, 1947. It was further held by him that out of those accounts or funds they were permitted to make any payment to or for credit of any person resident outside India. The prohibition imposed by Sec. 5(1)(a) of the Act was not applicable as by virtue of another Notification of the Reserve Bank of India (No RBI (FERA)/119/53-RB dated 30th July, 1953) persons in the category of the appellants were exempted from the provisions of the said sub-section. Hence, the seven charges relating to such payments were dropped. His finding, however, was that as persons residents in India, it was not permissible for them to borrow or lend foreign exchange from or to a person resident abroad. Further, on sale and mortgage of the property situate abroad, the foreign exchange obtained by them was liable to be repatriated. The Board has agreed with the above findings.


4. The Director found the appellants guilty on the charges covered under the following four show cause notices;


In Re : Mr. Mehta :


(1) Show cause notice No. II related to two charges (a) for having failed to offer for sale 940 dollars' travellers cheques (b) for failure to repatriate a sum of 42,000/- Swiss Francs which he had obtained as sale price of his land in Geneva.


(2) Show cause notice No. VIII related to borrowing of money by Mr. Mehta by mortgaging his Villa in Switzerland.


(3) Show cause notice No. XVII related to lending of Pound 50,000 by Mr. Mehta to one Mr. Kumar Kochar of London.


(4) Show cause notice No. V related to the borrowing of the amount of Pound 60,000/- by Mr. Mehta by mortgaging his house at Nairobi.


5. The Board found that the property in question in Nairobi was not owned by Mr. Mehta and as such he could not have mortgaged the same. On this charge Mr. Mehta was acquitted, and the penalty for this contravention was set aside. The penalty of Rs. 5,000/- however, imposed by the Director on each of the other counts as detailed above was maintained.


In Re : Mrs. Mehta :


6. The charge in the show cause notice whereunder Mrs. Mehta was held to have contravened Section 9 of the Act related to the receipt of rent and dividends amounting to Shillings 95,811.98 by her from her property in Nairobi. It was held that she had failed to offer for sale to an authorised dealer the said sum of foreign exchange; thus contravening the provisions of the act and as such a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed by the Director. This finding and the imposition of penalty was upheld by the Board.


7. Before analysing the reasons on which the appellants were found guilty, it is necessary to notice certain facts so as to appreciate the legal submission that the appellants were not "persons residents in India", and, therefore, not liable.


8. The appellants are not Indian citizens. Mr. Mehta was born in Gujarat in the year 1921 but had lived in Uganda as a child. He acquired British Citizenship and passport in the year 1947. Thereafter, he migrated to Switzerland; he became a permanent resident of that country and was so declared by the Swiss Government. It appears that he acquired immovable property of considerable value and was also maintaining bank accounts in that country and also in England. In October, 1960, Mr. Mehta came to India to take up an appointment as Managing Director of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Limited. It was stated at the bar that the said Company is a Government company.


9. From the judgment under appeal it appears that his initial appointment was for a fixed period of five years. It is not contested that Mr. Mehta was registered as a foreigner under the Registration of Foreigner's Rules, 1939.


10. On receipt of a reliable information that Mr. Mehta had despatched on 29th June, 1966, a cheque for pound 700 drawn on the First National City Bank of New York to London, the appellant's office and residence at Bombay were searched, and it was found from the documents recovered that the appellant and his wife were not only maintaining several accounts in foreign countries which they had been operating while in India but were also holding considerable assets abroad. The Director of Enforcement was of the view that Mr. Mehta and his wife who were considered by him to be persons residents in India had contravened the provisions of the Act by dealing in foreign currency and consequently 11 show cause notices were issued to Mr. Mehta and six to his wife. The allegations pertained to contravention of Sections 4(1), 5(1)(a) and 9 of the Act read with notification No. F. 1(67)/EC/57, dated 25th September, 1958. Apart from one charge falling under show cause notice No. II all the other charges related to either dealing in foreign exchange or obtaining certain moneys by mortgaging or selling their property in East Africa and Switzerland. The main finding of the Director of Enforcement which has been upheld by the Board was that the appellants being residents in India had contravened the provisions of the act by not re-patriating the foreign exchange which was raised by them by mortgaging or selling their properties abroad. As noticed above, it is common ground that the appellants are neither citizens of India nor were they domiciled in this country. I may note here that the Reserve Bank of India vide letter dated 15th February, 1969, had declared Mr. Mehta as a person of non-Indian (Swiss) domicile for exchange control purposes. However, one of the charger against Mr. Mehta vide show-cause Notice No. II(a) was that he did not offer for sale to an authorised dealer foreign exchange worth 940 Dollars which he possessed in the form of travellers cheques issued by the Americal Express Company. This foreign currency was recovered from his possession when his house was searched. According to the notification No. F-1(67)/EC/57, dated 25th September, 1958, which was issued under Section 9 of the Act a person in India (where the resident or not) is obliged within one month of the date of his owning or holding of Dollars to offer the same or cause the same to be offered for sale to an authorised dealer at the rate which is for the time being authorised by the Reserve Bank of India.


11. Mr. M. C. Bhandare, learned counsel for the appellants, frankly conceded that at the relevant time in 1966 Mr. Mehta while in India was obliged as per the said notification to offer to the Reserve Bank of India the traveller cheques amounting to 940 Dollars for converting them into Indian currency. The violation of the said notification is, therefore, not open to challenge irrespective of the fact whether Mr. Mehta was an Indian resident or not. He was a person physically in India. Therefore, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on this allegation has to be maintained. I may note here that the Board had set aside the order of confiscation of the said traveller cheques.


12. Thus, the only legal question which arise for consideration is whether the finding that the appellants were residents in India is correct. If they were the imposition of penalty as imposed by the Director of Enforcement and upheld by the Board is justified.


13. However, at this stage I may note that the learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these two appeals in this Court as under Explanation (i) to Section 54 of the Act "High Court" means "The High Court within the jurisdiction of which the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain". The contention is that the appellants were ordinarily residing at Bombay where Mr. Mehta was personally working for gain, as managing director of Saurashtra Cement and Chemicals Ltd., therefore, the appeals ought to have been filed only in the Bombay High Court. The appeals were admitted on 20th May, 1975 for hearing. The respondents were duly served in the same year. The preliminary objection was, however, taken during arguments at final hearing. Since for decision of this objection, facts regarding the appellants being residents in India or not had to be gone into, I considered it appropriate to ask the parties' counsel to address me on all the questions raised in the appeals. The parties were heard at length. In my view, for the reasons stated hereafter, the appeals are maintainable in this Court. I, however, propose to deal, first with the question whether the appellants were at the relevant time residents in India.


14. The term "person resident in India" was not defined in the 1947 Act. It has, however, been defined in the present Act. Under the Act, whether present or old it is not necessary for a person who is resident in India to have an Indian domicile. Learned counsel for the parties have not disputed this proposition. It is admitted by Mr. Wadhwa that the appellants were not domiciled in India. The definition as given in the New Act is not applicable, as the contravention in the present case took place prior to the coming into force of the Act, it is urged.


15. The Director while coming to the finding that the appellants were persons residents in India although not domiciled had held so primarily because of the admission of Mr. Mehta which he had made before the Enforcement Officer on 9th November, 1966. "I came to India on 19th October, 1960, and had been ordinarily staying in India ever since except for some visits for short durations abroad".


16. The Director (at page 5 of his order) has concluded "It is thus clear that Shri K. N. Mehta is a person resident in India although not domiciled".


17. It was, however, found by him that by virtue of Reserve Bank Notification No. FERA 23/47-RB dated 8th July, 1947, K. N. Mehta as he was not domiciled in India was entitled to maintain and operate account expressed in foreign exchange, Nevertheless, he held that provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act were applicable in Mr. Mehta's case inasmuch as "he cannot borrow or lead foreign exchange from a person other than Bank nor can he purchase or sell foreign exchange from any person without the permission of the Reserve Bank".


18. The other sections of the Act, viz., Sections 5, 8, 9 and 10 etc. will also be applicable to him subject to the exemption given in the various notifications pursuant to the above notification.


19. As noticed earlier the Board has upheld the finding regarding the appellants being residents in India. The Board, however, did not rely on the statement of Mr. Mehta for coming to this conclusion. It was observed, "We do not consider that we would be justified in drawing any concussion as to the appellant's domicile or residence solely on the basis of any admissions on these issues". The reason for upholding the finding by the Board was that the appellant's stay in India was not purely temporary as he had been living in India since 1960 and, therefore, "he can well be regarded as a person ordinarily resident here". On this proposition of law the Board's conclusion appears in paragraph 46 of its order. It reads thus :


"The period of Shri Mehta's stay as well as the quality of it, viz. it being a stay for the purpose of taking up an office in a country wherein he had roots would, in our opinion, establish that Shri Mehta, was in face resident in India although he may not be domiciled in this country. In fact, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the question of Shri Mehta's domicile for the order of the learned Director proceeds upon the basis that the appellant is domiciled abroad. On the question of residence, taking all the circumstances into account, we hold that the appellant Shri K. N. Mehta was a person resident in India since October, 1960".


20. It is this finding which is challenged before me. Ordinarily, the sole test for deciding the question of residence is whether a party had animus manendi or an intention to stay for an indefinite period at one place. If he had such an intention he could be said to "reside" there. It has been held in a catena of authorities that the word "reside" implies something more than a brief visit but not such continuity as to amount to a domicile. as noticed by the Supreme Court in Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh, (1964) 2 SCR 73 : (1963 (2) Cri LJ 413), no decision goes so far as to hold that "resides" means only domicile in the technical sense of that word. In the said case Sub-section (8) of Section 488 of 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure fell for consideration. It was held that a temporary stay of the husband at a place although he had a permanent house elsewhere would give jurisdiction to the Magistrate to entertain a petition for maintenance at the place of temporary residence also. Their Lordships, however, cautioned "In short, the meaning of the word would in the ultimate analysis, depend upon the context and purpose of a particular statute. In this case the context and the purpose of the present statute certainly do not compel the importation of the concept of domicile in its technical sense. The purpose of the statute would be better served if the word "resides" was understood to include temporary residence".


21. In the instant case it has been held by the authorities below that the appellant was not a permanent resident in India; he was domiciled in Switzerland. In Shanti Prasad Jain v. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1962 SC 1764, in which case the prohibition under Section 4(1) of 1947 Act was being considered, it was held by their Lordships that the expression "resident in India" is clearly used in the sense "resident of India". The argument was that as the appellant in the said case was outside India and had contravened the provisions of the act while in Germany, he was not liable. Negativing the contention, in paragraph 47 of the judgment the Supreme Court has held as follows :


"It remains to deal with the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that even if it be held that the appellant had made the deposits in question in the Deutsche Bank as a customer, there had been no contravention of Section 4(1) of the Act as the prohibition enacted therein is only against lending of foreign exchange by a person who is resident in Indian and that at the time of the deposits in question the appellant was not in India but in Germany. There is no substance in this contention. The intention of the Legislature was plainly to prohibit all transactions in foreign exchange by persons who are residents of India whether such transactions take place during their actual residence in India or during their sojourn in foreign parts. To hold that the prohibition under the Act does not extend to acts done outside India by residents of India must inevitably lead to large-scale evasion of the Act resulting in its object being defeated. A construction which leads to such a result must be avoided. The expression "resident in India" is clearly used in the sense "resident of India".


22. It is thus clear that a person to be termed a resident in India under the Act of 1947 must be person who has an intention to reside in India for uncertain period if not indefinitely, so as to be resident of India in the context and purpose of that Act.


23. The Act of 1947 was a temporary Act due to expire on 31st day of December, 1957. Prior to the enforcement of the Act on the outbreak of the Second World War, for the purpose of conserving the limited supplies of foreign exchange available to India, a series of Rule under the defence of India Act, 1939, were framed. After the war as it was considered that shortage of foreign exchange was likely to continue, a temporary Act containing measures to regulate transactions in foreign exchange was enacted. The trend of events showed that it was not possible to visualise that in foreseeable future it would be possible to dispense with the exchange control, therefore, the act was placed on permanent footing. The Act of 1947 was enacted "to regulate certain payments, dealings in foreign exchange and securities and the import and export of currency and bullion". Section 4 laid down the restrictions on dealings in foreign exchange. No person resident in India other than an authorised dealer without the exemption granted by the reserve Bank of India, could deal in foreign exchange. Section 5 imposed restrictions on payments. The object of the act was to conserve foreign exchange. To achieve that object the Central Government was empowered to control transactions in foreign exchange. In that context, restrictions on dealings in foreign exchange were imposed on persons residents in India. Those restrictions, however, could be relaxed by the Reserve Bank of India. By notification which I have noticed earlier, the Reserve Bank had permitted persons who were at the relevant time not domiciled in India but residents in India to maintain and operate bank accounts abroad. The earnings in foreign exchange of persons residents in India whether domiciled or not had to be repatriated but this obligation could not be imposed on persons who were not residents of India. "A person resident in India" was not defined in the 1947 Act. However, the definition added in the act of 1973, shows the mind of the legislature. It is relevant to note here the definition in sub-clause (iii) of sub-section (p) of Section 2 of the 1973 Act :


"(p) "person resident in India" means -


(i) to (ii) * * *


(iii) a person, not being a citizen of India, who has come to, or stayed in, India, in either case -


(a) for or on taking up employment in India, or


(b) for carrying on in India a business or vocation in India, or


(c) for staying with his/her spouse, such spouse being a person resident in India, or


(d) for any other purpose, in such circumstances as would indicate his intention to stay in India for an uncertain period".


24. The emphasis seems to be that those persons who are not citizens of Indian having come to India to reside for uncertain period are to be considered as persons residents in India. However, if the stay of a person, not being a citizen of India, is purely temporary or for a certain fixed period that person would not be covered under the expression "person resident in India". Such a person would not therefore be a resident of India. The prohibitions and obligations imposed under the act would not be applicable to that person. It is true that the present definition is not applicable to the appellants; it has noticed only to highlight the position as at present. However, in the case of the appellants, the underlying principle as envisaged by the definition in the 1973 Act could be made use of. Under the 1947 Act a foreigner not domiciled in India, who had come to this country for taking up employment for a specific period, his foreign exchange earnings on his assets abroad, were not liable to be controlled and as such there was no obligation on him to repatriate the same. The appellants were not residents of India. During their visits to foreign countries from India, the restrictions imposed by Sections 4 and 5 of the Act were not applicable to them. While outside the country they were entitled to dispose of their property in Switzerland or Kenya in any way they liked. Therefore, they cannot be termed "persons residents in India". As noticed above, they have since left the country.


25. The authorities cited by Mr. Wadhwa, wherein it has been held that a man's residence is where he habitually sleeps or dwells for a considerable time, are of no help to him as those cases fall outside the scope of the question raised before me. One of the authorities cited by him Sri Kishore Chandra Sing Deo v. Ganesh Prasad Bhagal, 1954 SCR 919 : (AIR 1954 SC 316), wherein it was held that the word "resides" in Section 33(1)(a) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, contemplates not only permanent residence but also temporary residence is not applicable in the context of the present statute. Similarly, the cases under Section 488 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, wherein it has been held that even temporary residence of a husband gives jurisdiction to the Magistrate to entertain a petition under S. 488 of that Code, are not applicable. As noticed above, the expression "person resident in India" is to be read in the context and purpose of the Act of 1947.


26. Now let me advert to the preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the appeals.


27. It is evident that at the relevant time the Act of 1947 was in force. The adjudication proceedings were held by the Director under that Act at New Delhi and were concluded by his order of 30th May, 1970. The first appeal though preferred under the provisions of the old Act yet since the new Act of 1973 had come into force in the meantime (by virtue of section 81 of that Act) it was heard and disposed of by the Board at Delhi under the provisions of the 1973 Act. It is no doubt true that now because of the amendment of the act the High Court where the appeal lies is the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business. In the present case, however it is admitted that the appellants are no longer residing India; they have since left this country. In the facts and circumstances of this case it is urged on behalf of the respondents that for purposes of filing and prosecuting these appeals, the appellants are ordinarily residents of Bombay.


28. It is admitted that second appeal provided under the act of 1947 on a question of law against the Board's decision could be filed in this Court. Now, however it is up to the aggrieved party to file an appeal in the High Court within the jurisdiction of which he resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Under the 2nd Explanation to the said Section 54 where the Central Government is the aggrieved party, it has to file an appeal in the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the respondent, or in a case where there are more than one, respondents, any of the respondents ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.


29. The underlying idea manifest is that under Explanation I an aggrieved party is left to choose the High Court where to prefer an appeal eith

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

er at the place of his (a) residence or (b) business; and under Explanation II it is obligatory on the Central Government to file an appeal only in that High Court within whose jurisdiction respondent ordinarily resides or carries on business. But the present is a case where the aggrieved party is no longer in India and was never resident of India. Because of the Explanation I is he to file an appeal only in Bombay High Court or is it open to him to file an appeal in this Court after the decision of the Board which rejected his appeal at New Delhi ? This explanation appears to have been inserted for the benefit of the aggrieved party and cannot be read so rigidly, as is being sought to be interpreted by Mr. Wadhwa. If he is right then the appeal of a foreign national who had come to India as a tourist and was held guilty for contravening the provisions of the Act would not be maintainable in any High Court because he nowhere "ordinarily resides" or "carries on business" or "works for gain". 30. It is not Mr. Wadhwa's case that wherever an offender under this Act is apprehended, that would become his place of ordinary residence. Generally speaking, this difficulty would not arise in case of residents of India. It may arise in a case where the offender is non-resident of India. He may choose to file the appeal in this Court after the decision of the Board which is situate in Delhi. In such a case challenge to the decision of the Board taken at Delhi is maintainable in this Court. 31. There is another aspect. These appeals were filed in the year 1975; and admitted to regular hearing. It was open to the respondents, if they were so advised, to raise the objection immediately after service of the notice of the appeals. They chose not to do so. In my view, it is not in the interests of justice at such a late stage that the memorandum of appeals be returned so that they may be filed in the Bombay High Court as suggested by Mr. Wadhwa; particularly as I have heard arguments on merits. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case I hold that this Court has jurisdiction to hear these appeals. 32. In view of my discussion above, the orders of the Board with regard to the contraventions, except for the one relating to traveller cheques (show cause notice No. II(a)) are set aside. The appeal of Mr. Mehta is party accepted. 33. Mrs. Mehta's appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1975) is also allowed. 34. Fines except with regard to Rupees 5,000/- imposed on the charge of possessing traveller cheques by Mr. Mehta, if already paid, will be refunded. Appeal partly allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-02-2020 V. Narayanasamy Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 M/s. GAIL (India) Limited, R.K. Puram, New Delhi Versus M/s. Arkay Energy(Rameswaram)Limited, Rep. by its President (Commercial and Legal) R. Jarard Kishore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 Airport Authority of India, Represented by Its Chairperson, New Delhi & Others Versus B. Sham Krishna & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions (P) Ltd. Dwaraka, New Delhi, Registered Office Bhatinda, Punjab, Represented by Its Director, Vikas Mehta Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Shanti Bhatt & Others Versus Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Ashishkumar Dineshkumar Patel, Proprietor of M/s. New Rajashiri Oil Depot High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-02-2020 Hanuman Bhauso Chhatre Versus New Holland Fair (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 Magma Fincorp Ltd., Kolkata Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Manager, Delhi Versus Chaman Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Ganpati Timber Store, By Proprietor Sh. Rajesh Khadariya & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Sanjay Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
13-02-2020 Satish Kumar Versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
13-02-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, New Delhi Versus Rajendra Sudamrao Shinde & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rukhmabai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
07-02-2020 Desh Pal Malik (Chaudhary) & Others Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Dr. S. P. Mukherjee, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-02-2020 State Bank of India & Another Versus New India Assurance Company Limited Supreme Court of India
07-02-2020 K.N. Anilkumar Versus Bar Council of India, Represented by Its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
06-02-2020 Kumar Nishugyan & Others Versus Ministry of Railway, Through The Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
04-02-2020 Vivek Viswanathan Versus M/s. Unitech Limited, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-02-2020 4A Securities Limited, New Delhi Versus National Stock Exchange of India Limited SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
04-02-2020 Ajit Singh Versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
03-02-2020 M/s. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. (Formerly Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd), New Delhi Versus Sachin Vitthalrao Wankhede National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-02-2020 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others Versus Sandeep Pandey, Constable (Retd.) No. 001148574, HA 148 BN BSF, Nagpur High Court of Kerala
31-01-2020 Sanjay Vithal Das Sampat Versus Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Represented by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
30-01-2020 Saparna Prakash & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Life Insurance Corporation Of India Through Assistant Secretary (Legal) Co (Legal), New Delhi Versus Kalluri Siddaiah National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-01-2020 Balasubramaniam Rajalakshmi & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 Shalini Singh Versus M/s. Arena Super Structures Pvt. Ltd., Through Managing Director/Authorised Signatory, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-01-2020 Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Dr. Anup Bhargava & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-01-2020 SBEC Systems (India) Ltd., New Delhi & Others Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
28-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Authorised Signatory, New Delhi Versus M/s. Durga Bricks Industries, West Bengal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Senior Divisional Manager, Chandigarh Versus Palagiri Kumari & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Senior Divisional Manager, Chandigarh Versus Palagiri Kumari & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-01-2020 Niti Dixit Versus Imperia Structures Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-01-2020 Dr. Johny Cyriac Versus The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, New Delhi, Represented by Its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
17-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Versus Manju Rathore & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-01-2020 New Delhi Municipal Council Versus Vijay Kumar Sharma High Court of Delhi
14-01-2020 S.M. Zaheer Alam Versus National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) through its Chairperson, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-01-2020 Qualified Private Medical Practitioners Association, having its Registered Office, Kottayam, Represented by Its President, Dr. O. Baby Versus Union of India, Represented by Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
13-01-2020 Adithya Modi Versus Union of India, Rep. by the Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Urmila Agarwal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-01-2020 The Central Board of Excise & Customs, Rep. by its Chairman, New Delhi & Others Versus M/s. K.G. Denim Limited, (Rep. by V. Arulanandham, Dy. General Manager), Mettupalayam High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 M/s. Shri Durga Khandsari Sugar Mills Mendrana, Madhya Pradesh Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Madhya Pradesh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-01-2020 M/s. Express Infrastructure Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, R.R. Aroon Kumar Versus M/s. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Limited, New Delhi also having office at Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 M/s. Grant Thornton India LLP., New Delhi Versus 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Formerly Known as Financial Technologies (India) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 N. Ramaswamy, Erode Versus Union of India, Rep. by the Director General of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
07-01-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Aruna Hanumant Yadav & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-01-2020 IJM-SCL JV, Hyderabad & Others Versus M/s. National Highway Authority of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi Versus Shibu M. Job, Now Working as Director (Postal Life Insurance), Kolkatha & Others High Court of Kerala
03-01-2020 M/s. Gemini Edibles and Fats India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad Versus Union of India (Through its Secretary), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Manager, New Delhi & Another Versus Dr. Vipul Rai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-01-2020 Lekh Bahadur Thapa Versus Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
02-01-2020 M. Balakrishna Reddy, IFS, Shillong Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests & Climate Change, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
31-12-2019 Dr. Bharat Mehta (Deceased) & Another Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle I (3) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-12-2019 Manju Saraswathy Versus The Director General, HQ DGNCC, (Head Quarters, Director General National Cadet Corps.), New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
24-12-2019 Bhagwanti Jethwani Versus Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
23-12-2019 BPTP Ltd., Through its Managing Director, New Delhi Versus Pradeep Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-12-2019 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sushama Mahendra Sonawane & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-12-2019 V. Krishnamurthy Versus The Airport Authority of India, (Represented by its Chairman), Rajiv Gandhi bahvan, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-12-2019 Manjeet Kapoor Proprietor M/s. Manjeet Plastic Industries, New Delhi Versus Tamil Nadu Textbook and Educational Services Corp. Chennai, Tamil Nadu High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-12-2019 Samarendra Das, IFS, East Agartala, West Tripura Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
20-12-2019 Hardewa Ram, Presently working as Superintendent, Customs (Preventive Division), Agartala & Another Versus The Union of India Through the Secretary, To the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
19-12-2019 STC Ex.Exployees Welfare Association (Regd No.16 of 2007), Rep.by its President S. Krishnamurthy Versus The Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Ashish Ravindra Kulkarni & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-12-2019 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Julius T.J. Freitas & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-12-2019 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Shree Shankar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-12-2019 M/s. Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Represented by its Authorized Representative, New Delhi Versus V.O.Chidambaram Port Trust High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Kancheepuram Versus Vepati Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 P. Venu Versus The Union of India, Through The Secretary Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-12-2019 G. Mahesh & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary To Government, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-12-2019 Refex Energy Ltd., Through its Managing Director, Madurai Versus Union of India, Through its Secretary (Legislative), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-12-2019 Manoramya Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Versus Tinaben Behram Mehta High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
17-12-2019 Manali Malik, New Delhi Versus ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd., Through its Chairman/Managing Director, Mumbai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-12-2019 Cheslind Textiles Ltd., B. Muduganapalli Versus The Registrar/Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-12-2019 Souhrada Charitable Club, Represented by Its President, Akhil Augustine & Another Versus The Union of India, Represented by The Secretary To Government, The Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
13-12-2019 M/s. Crystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-12-2019 Saleem Madavoor @ Muhammed Salim, National President, Loktantarik Yuva Janathadal Versus The Secretary to Government, Human Resources Department, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-12-2019 Union of India, Rep. by Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi & Others Versus Swaroop Shetty & Others High Court of Kerala
12-12-2019 Dimples Infra & Another Versus Heer Mehta Landmark Developers Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-12-2019 Nobby M. George, Changanassery Tlauk, Rep. by Power of Attorney holder his mother Alice George, Changanassery Versus Jossy Joseph, Kuttanad Taluk, Now Staying With Her Sister Raji Joseph, Erskine Court, Nanuet 10954, New York, USA High Court of Kerala
11-12-2019 Sterlite Technologies Limited Rep by Chief Manager K. Sundar & Another Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep by Managing Director, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 Sri Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda Versus Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited Supreme Court of India
10-12-2019 The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Parimalam Complex, Eroad Versus Madhammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-12-2019 Om Prakash Kapoor @ O.P. Kapoor Versus State Thru. Cbi, Bs & Fc, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-12-2019 M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India & 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
06-12-2019 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Krishna Kumar Pandey Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 Shubhajit Kar Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
03-12-2019 Swapan Kumar Ghosh Versus M/s. New Maatara Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-12-2019 The Chirayinkeezhu Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Secretary A. Anil Kumar & Others Versus Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi, Represented by Its Chairman & Others High Court of Kerala
03-12-2019 Rekha Basfore, Kamrup (M) Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary To the Govt. of India, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
03-12-2019 Rupali Thakur Bhuyan & Others Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Government of India, Ministry of Mines (Department of Mines), New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
03-12-2019 S.S. Chawla Versus Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
02-12-2019 G. Vasudevan Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-12-2019 Binod Kumar Singh Versus The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, North Block Secretariat Building New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
02-12-2019 Purbanchaliya Rail Karmi Parishad, Represented by its General Secretary, Bindeswari Prasad, having its Registered Office at Maligaon Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
29-11-2019 Poondimadha Religious Trust, Rep. by the Chief Functionary, Fr.A. Packiasamy, Poondi Versus The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division (FCRA Wing), New Delhi Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-11-2019 Employees State Insurance Corporation, Represented by its Director General, New Delhi & Others Versus Y. Lillykutty & Others High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 Avinash Baro & Others Versus The Union of India, Rep. By The Secretary, Min of Information & Broadcasting, A- Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
26-11-2019 Shane Francisco Dias & Others Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa