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



Kanwal Kant Chagti v/s Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- HOTEL CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101MH1971GOI015217

Company & Directors' Information:- HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U55101DL2001PTC112151

Company & Directors' Information:- KANT & CO LTD [Active] CIN = U17232WB1952PLC020773

Company & Directors' Information:- HOTEL K K (INDIA) PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U55101GJ1995PTC025898

Company & Directors' Information:- P A HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92490TN1981PTC008959

Company & Directors' Information:- HOTEL K. K. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U55101OR1995PTC004187

Company & Directors' Information:- N V HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101WB1996PTC082014

Company & Directors' Information:- KANWAL AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34100MH1954PTC009307

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND M HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U55101PN2008PTC131239

Company & Directors' Information:- I-QUEEN PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999KL2017PTC048635

    CO.PET. No. 148 of 2012

    Decided On, 25 February 2019

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

    For the Petitioner: Amardeep Singh, Shruti Khosla, Advocates. For the Respondent: Jayant K. Mehta, Harshit Agarwal, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Oral:

1. This petition is filed under section 439 read with sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent company. The case of the petitioner in the winding up petition is that in the year 2007 on the request of the respondent, the petitioner extended a loan to the respondent for a sum of Rs.49,07,663/-. The said payments were made vide cheques in March 2007. It is the case of the petitioner that the cheques were duly honoured and the said amounts were duly credited in the bank account of the respondent. It was also orally agreed that the respondent will pay interest @12% per annum to the petitioner from November 2007 to January 2009. Respondent company has returned part payment of Rs.31,50,000/-. It is further pleaded that in the month of March, 2008 the respondent company issued TDS certificate to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,41,644/-. After making adjustment the remaining balance is of Rs.39,80,416.24 as on 03.04.2010. It is also stated that the case of the respondent company came under scrutiny with the Income Tax Department regarding assessment year 2008-2009. The Income Tax Department wrote to the petitioner and the respondent to confirm copy of transactions entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent company vide its letter dated 13.08.2010 wrote to the Income Tax Department acknowledging the part of the debt of Rs.50,16,189/- as it was then due to the petitioner. It is also stated that the respondent company filed copies of its revised ledger account containing the account of the petitioner as on 31.03.2008 and audited balance sheet also acknowledging the dues of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.39,80,416.24 against the respondent company in March, 2011 which is pending adjudication.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments have been made by Account Payee Cheque. He also relies upon the response of the respondent to the winding up petition where an admission is said to be made that the payments were returned by cash payment. He also relies upon a communication addressed by the respondent to the Income Tax Department where they have acknowledged the dues of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, strenuously pleaded that the said amount is not payable. He relies upon orders of this court to plead that the entire culprit in this matter was the former Director Mr.R.P.Mittal who was ousted from the management of the Respondent company on 15.1.2009 in terms of the order dated 14.1.2009 of the Division Bench of this court. He states that these entries have been introduced by the said Mr.R.P.Mittal who has thereafter disappeared taking away the books of accounts and records. He submits that even for the Income Tax Returns the respondent had no option but to rely upon the records of the old management. He further states that new Management has not admitted any outstanding dues of the petitioner.

He has relied upon averments to the said effect in the two affidavits filed, namely, in March 2018 and in October 2018. He also points out that the petitioner has also filed a suit for recovery of this amount prior to filing of the winding up petition. He states that as the petitioner has filed a suit, he may be relegated to the said proceedings for recovery of its dues. He also states that the respondents have also filed a suit against Mr.R.P.Mittal and his accomplices like the petitioner for recovery of dues on account of the malfeasance and misfeasance.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgment of this court in Bank of Nova Scotia vs. RPG Transmission Ltd., (2005) 3 Comp LJ 287 (Del) to contend that mere filing of a winding up petition after filing of a suit would not render the winding up petition infructuous.

5. I may note two facts which have been strongly relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. In paragraph 9 of the reply filed the respondent has stated as follows:-

“9. That the contents of Para 9 are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the mentioned cheques have been honoured and the said amounts duly credited in the bank account of the Respondent Company and in the account books of the Respondent Company as alleged. However the fact of the matter is that the honour of cheques in account of the company was an act devised by Mr. R.P. Mittal as an integral part of the collusive scheme, who has thereafter taken out the money from the account of the company and transferred it back to the Petitioner, thus leaving no money to be legally paid to the, Respondent 'Company by creating a liability against and also leaving the claim over the Respondent company by such transactions.

As already pleaded in the preliminary objections/submissions that the entire case of the petitioner is based upon fraud, and has been filed at instance of Mr.R.P.Mittal, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the company is a juristic person and has to act through its officers. In present case it is deliberately not mentioned by the plaintiff, as to who from the side of respondent company has orally promised the interest to them.

The amount which is being claimed by the Petitioner, as being paid towards the interest is actually an entry created by Mr. R.P. Mittal so as to suit himself and the Petitioner, whereby they could build up the story of alleged loan. At this stage it is pertinent to note that no amount had gone to the Petitioner to service interest as suggested, on the contrary, it was Mr. R.P. Mittal, who created such fraudulent entries in the books of the Respondent Company, which could give some credibility to the loan story projected by the petitioner. That the account entries relied upon by the Petitioner is only a private collusive arrangement between Mr. R.P. Mittal and the Petitioner, to the detriment of the Respondent Company, upon which no reliance could be placed.”

6. Hence, it has been pleaded that taking the money into account of the respondent company was an act devised by the former Director Mr.R.P.Mittal who has thereafter taken out the money from the account of the respondent company and transferred it back to the petitioner. It is manifest from a reading of this submission that the payment as made by the petitioner was originally received by the respondent company.

7. Similarly, on 13.8.2010 the respondent has written to the Income Tax Officer where again they have acknowledged the outstanding dues payable by various entities including the petitioner Green Transport Corporation. Against the said company a balance of Rs.50,16,189/- is shown as a liability on 31.3.2008.

8. I may note that this court has on various dates including 24.8.2015, 28.8.2017 and 11.12.2017 issued directions to the respondent to file a clear affidavit regarding the position of payments made by the petitioner and the payments sent to the petitioner. The two affidavits have been field as noted above on March 2018 and October 2018. In the affidavit filed in March 2018 a plea has been taken by the respondent that Mr.R.P.Mittal resorted to large scale removal of the records of the respondent company which was also recorded in CCTV Cameras. The snapshots have been annexed. Hence, it is stated that the complete record of the respondent company and its accounts for the Financial Year 2007-08 were not even audited, the new management had no option but to go by the Income Tax Return filed by Mr.R.P.Mittal without in any manner ascertaining the authenticity and genuineness of what was recorded by Mr.R.P.Mittal when he was exclusive incharge of the respondent company. Hence, essentially the plea of the respondent is that for the period in question the original records are not available and what has been filed in the Income Tax Department is only a record created by Mr.R.P.Mital the Ex. Director.

9. As per the records available with the respondent company, they have accepted a liability of Rs.50,16,189/- in favour of the petitioner as on 31.03.2008, which is clear from the communication dated 13.08.2010 sent by the respondent company to the Income Tax Department. It is also a matter of fact that TDS certificate had been issued by the respondent company to the petitioner for the said dues. Further in their reply, the respondent company accepted that the amount relied upon by the petitioner was duly received in their account though it was claimed that the same was returned by Mr.R.P.Mittal. Clearly, prima facie amount appears due and payable to the Petitioner.

10. Regarding the plea that the suit has already been filed by the petitioner reference may be had to the judgment of this court in Bank of Nova Scotia vs. RPG Transmission Ltd. (supra) where the court framed the following issues:-

“1. In both these two appeals only one issue which is a pure question of law arises for consideration and decision of this court. The issue that is involved is whether winding up proceedings under the Companies Act could be initiated by a Bank or a Financial Institution after instituting a recovery proceeding by it under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter called `the RDB Act').

.....

11. The court held as follows:-

30. Therefore, it cannot be said that RDB Act covers the field for winding up an insolvent company and, Therefore, the contentions of Mr. Tripathi are misconceived and are accordingly rejected. The contention that the petitioner could chose one of the remedies available in case where two or more than two remedies are available is applicable when the remedy provided for is one and the same but when two different remedies are provided for two different reliefs, in that event the plea of election of remedies is not applicable. We, Therefore, hold that the winding up court is concerned with the issue as to whether or not a company could be declared as commercially insolvent and, Therefore, comes within the ambit of provisions of Section 433 of the Companies Act. The Debt Recovery Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to entertain any such application for winding up of a company whether the same is by any bank and/or other financial institution. We also hold that both the remedies and jurisdictions are mutually exclusive of each other and, Therefore, there cannot be any inconsistency between the two different remedies provided for in two different legislations. We respectfully agree with the Division Bench decisions of Bombay and Calcutta High Court referred to above. The legal issue, which arises for our consideration is answered accordingly. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 31st of October, 2002 in CP No. 323/2001 is set aside and the entire matter is remitted back to the learned Company Judge for re-consideration and for giving a decision on the facts of the said case.”

12. Hence, the Division Bench has taken the view that mere filing of a proceeding before the DRT would not negate the right of the banks to file a petition for winding up of the respondent company. Hence, in view of the dicta of the Division Bench filing a suit prior to filing of winding up petition may not be an impediment against the petitioner in filing the present petition. By the present petition what the Petitioner seeks is to wind up the Respondent Company.

13. It is a matter of fact that the petitioner has filed a suit being CS(OS) 822/2011 against the respondent company. It is also a matter of fact that the respondent company has filed a suit being CS(OS) 161/2012 against Mr.R.P.Mittal and his associates including the petitioner.

14. Keeping in view the above, in my opinion, an opportunity should be given to the respondent company to prove its case before a civil court. However, it is necessary to secure the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed outstanding amount in t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

he notice sent for a sum of Rs.39,17,007/- which includes interest @ 12% per annum. There is some merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that the claim of interest is based on an alleged oral agreement between the parties and is not in any manner reflected in any written documents exchanged between the parties. Keeping in view the above facts the principal amount outstanding prima facie payable by the respondent is Rs.17,57,000/-. Let the respondent deposit a sum of Rs.20 lacs in court with the Registrar General of this court. Registry shall put the same in a Fixed Deposit. This amount would be subject to outcome of the proceedings filed by the plaintiff for recovery of its alleged dues and also the suit filed by the respondent No.1 against Mr.R.P.Mittal and the petitioner. The said payment would be deposited within six weeks from today. Needless to add that any observations made herein shall not in any manner prejudice any party in the respective suits that are pending before the Civil Court. The parties are free to raise their pleas there as per law. Trial court may adjudicate the said pleas without being influenced by any observations made herein. 15. In any case if there is a default in depositing the payment, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek revival of this petition. Petition stands disposed of.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-10-2020 Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Limited Versus Piyush Kant Sharma & Others Supreme Court of India
12-10-2020 Mantu Kumar Singh @ Chandr Kant Singh Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
31-08-2020 James Leonard Toia Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
24-07-2020 M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel, Represented by its partner, D. Nagasamy Versus Thalapakattu Biriyani High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2020 University Of Petroleum & Energy Studies (UPES) Versus Anuj Kanwal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-06-2020 Van Dung Nguyen Versus The Queen High Court of Australia
10-06-2020 Hotel Nikhil Sai International Bar & Restaurant Versus Assistant Commissioner ST Audit & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-06-2020 Steven Robertson Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
02-06-2020 Wai Yew Chai Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
26-05-2020 Michaela Patricia Irwin Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
19-05-2020 Melissa Mary Haereroa Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
13-05-2020 James William Manuoa Te Hiko Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
11-05-2020 Phillip Richard Joe Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
08-05-2020 Malagi Vela Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
07-05-2020 Sammy Ayoun Soud Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
01-05-2020 Rajni Kant Srivastava Versus Kumudini Srivastava & Another High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Marshall James Dennis Joyce Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
28-04-2020 Kane Joseph Manoah Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
24-04-2020 Kanwal Tanuj Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
22-04-2020 Deo Narayan Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
07-04-2020 George Pell Versus The Queen High Court of Australia
03-04-2020 James Andrew Mills Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
24-03-2020 Jacob Lowenstein Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
23-03-2020 Te Iwi Ngaro Rameka Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
19-03-2020 Richard Tuwhakakorongo Te Roroa Te Kani Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
18-03-2020 William Rodney Swan Versus The Queen High Court of Australia
11-03-2020 Kelvin Clive Wood Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
03-03-2020 Hotel Surya, Iritty, Represented by Its Managing Partner, K.T. Mathew Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Department of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
02-03-2020 The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VII Commissionerate, Chennai V/S M/s. Sea Queen Shipping Services (P) Ltd., Adyar, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 Leanne Maree Crighton Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
20-02-2020 Jimmy Peter Akuhata Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
13-02-2020 Mani Kant Ravi & Others Versus Coal India Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-02-2020 The Deputy Director, Sub-Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus Surendra Das, Proprietor, Hotel Sree Visakh, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
10-02-2020 Achal Bisht Versus Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management & Catering Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-02-2020 Kerala Financial Corporation, Represented by Its Deputy Manager (LEGAL), Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus M/s. Mas Hotel, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Managing Partner, K.M. Ibrahimkutty Mather High Court of Kerala
05-02-2020 Zeki Ray Kadir Versus The Queen High Court of Australia
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
13-01-2020 Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, Japan & Another Versus Rakesh Kant Tuli & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-01-2020 Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through The Assistant Engineer, District-Sri Ganga Nagar Rajasthan Versus Ravi Kant National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-01-2020 State Bank of India and Others. V/S Daaj Hotel And Resorts Pvt. Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
02-01-2020 Palladian Hotels Private Limited Versus Hotel Horizon Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-12-2019 Vishnu Kant Sharma Versus Chief Election Commissioner & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
12-12-2019 M/s. Sangeetha Caterers & Consultants LLP Represented by its Designated Partners: P. Rajagopal & Another V/S Hotel Sangeetha, Pure Vegetarian, Represented by its Proprietrix, R. Vasanthi High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 Kanwal Jeet Saini & Others Versus Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
14-11-2019 Taj Mahal Hotel Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
08-11-2019 Indian Overseas Bank Versus Hotel Natraj Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gauhati
01-11-2019 M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Mandaveli Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-10-2019 Ameer, Proprietor, Kasaragod & Another Versus M/s. B. Amoo & Brothers, Proprietor, Hotel Airlines, Kasaragod, Represented by Its Managing Partners, B. Abdul Rahiman, B. Abdulla & Others High Court of Kerala
24-09-2019 Rashtriya Mul Niwasi Bahujan Karmachari Sangh, through its Secretary Versus Hotel TriStar Inn Pvt. Ltd. through its General Manager In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-09-2019 M/s. Adayar Gate Hotel Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-I High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2019 The Bihar State Power holding Company Ltd., Patna Versus M/s Hotel Satkar Pvt. Limited, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
06-09-2019 Papa Manu Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
04-09-2019 Jay Kant Mishra Versus M/s. S. Chand & Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
03-09-2019 M/s. Hotel Roop Basant Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-08-2019 M/s. Hotel Sri Sampoorna, Represented by its Proprietor, S. Soundararajan, Coimbatore Versus M/s. Ess. Emm. Corporation, Represented by its Managing Partner, M. Sathish Kumar, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2019 Kodaikanal Hotel and Resort Owners Association, Rep. by its Secretary, S.Abdul Gani Raja Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-08-2019 Ajay Bangur & Others Versus B. Majumdar Samajpati & Sons Hotel Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-08-2019 Shane Arron Hunter Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
07-08-2019 Malayala Manorama, Represented By Its Chief Editor, Mammen Mathew & Others Versus M/s Future Gaming & Hotel Services Private Limited High Court of Sikkim
07-08-2019 Wen Xu Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
07-08-2019 Ahana Gupta Versus Girish Kant Choudhary High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-08-2019 M/s. Hotel Marina & Another Versus Vibha Mehta High Court of Delhi
31-07-2019 Her Majesty The Queen Versus R.V. Supreme Court of Canada
29-07-2019 Shayal Upashna Sami Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
25-07-2019 M/s. Hotel Asia the Dawn Versus Laxmi Chand High Court of Himachal Pradesh
18-07-2019 Shashi Kant Srivastava Versus State of U.P. Thru Secy. Irrigation & Others (S/S 1319/1996) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
17-07-2019 Gurmit Singh Bhatia V/S Kiran Kant Robinson and Others. Supreme Court of India
17-07-2019 Gurmit Singh Bhatia Versus Kiran Kant Robinson & Others Supreme Court of India
11-07-2019 Keith Bartram Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
10-07-2019 Gang Chen & Another Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
09-07-2019 Zen Pulemoana Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
08-07-2019 Kovinantie Fukofuka Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
05-07-2019 Majesty The Queen Versus Albert Penunsi Supreme Court of Canada
01-07-2019 Danial John Keeley Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
28-06-2019 Patrick John Goldfinch Versus Her Majesty The Queen Supreme Court of Canada
13-06-2019 QI XIE Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
11-06-2019 Kevin Martin Matthews Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
04-06-2019 Ngakiri Williams Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
31-05-2019 Tom Le Versus Her Majesty The Queen Supreme Court of Canada
24-05-2019 Bradley David Barton Versus Her Majesty The Queen Supreme Court of Canada
23-05-2019 In Re: Mr. Kuntal Chowdhary 3, West Bengal, India Versus Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited Atlanta Arcade, Near Leela Hotel, Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai Maharashtra, India & Others Competition Commission of India
21-05-2019 The Management of M/s. The Lily Hotel, Assam Versus The State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
16-05-2019 M/s National Printers, proprietor Apex Products Private Limited through its Director Sri Krishnan Kant Kedia Versus The State of Jharkhand, through its Principal Secretary, HRD-cum-State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council & Others High Court of Jharkhand
16-05-2019 Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union Versus Management of Ashok Hotel High Court of Delhi
10-05-2019 Ram Parshotam Mittal & Others Versus Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
07-05-2019 Jason Phillip Dehaar Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
03-05-2019 Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s. D.S. Cargo Agency, Prop.Sh. Diva Kant Jha Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
18-04-2019 Sean Patrick Mills Versus Her Majesty The Queen Supreme Court of Canada
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 Rajeshwar Singh Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
10-04-2019 The Queen Versus Dylan Cossey Court of Appeal of New Zealand
09-04-2019 Tuatahi Te Parau Gotz Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
04-04-2019 Chandra Kant Pandey Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
02-04-2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 10, Mumbai Versus Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-03-2019 Corey Lee James Myers Versus Her Majesty The Queen Supreme Court of Canada
22-03-2019 Shaun Thomas Bishop Butler Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
13-03-2019 Swagath Hotels Private Limited., rep. by Managing Director, M. Kishore Reddy Versus M/s. Hotel Swagath rep. by its Partner D. Ravinder High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-03-2019 Vishnu Kant Pandit Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
12-03-2019 Christian Lee Hone Hobson Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
28-02-2019 Stead Nuku Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand