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



La Chemise Lacoste & Another v/s R.H. Garments & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- D R GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101GJ2005PTC046010

Company & Directors' Information:- R. R. GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1995PLC095544

Company & Directors' Information:- S G GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2004PLC098193

Company & Directors' Information:- K K P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921TZ1994PTC005334

Company & Directors' Information:- B K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2001PTC109850

Company & Directors' Information:- N K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2000PTC107093

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2005PTC101896

Company & Directors' Information:- G AND A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101PB1995PTC016121

Company & Directors' Information:- V H GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52322MH2008PTC181066

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1996PTC083315

Company & Directors' Information:- G. M. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2006PTC152683

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND D GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1975PTC007923

Company & Directors' Information:- J S GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2009PTC135262

Company & Directors' Information:- K. B . GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2011PTC166954

Company & Directors' Information:- A K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2015PTC282847

Company & Directors' Information:- D P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2004PTC129479

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143084

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P GARMENTS PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143556

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101HR2005PTC068124

Company & Directors' Information:- L. H. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17121KA2011PTC060761

Company & Directors' Information:- K R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111WB1998PTC087046

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52321TN1993PTC025318

Company & Directors' Information:- P. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204DL2007PTC164238

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17121DL2007PTC165007

Company & Directors' Information:- T S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51494DL1996PTC076668

Company & Directors' Information:- GARMENTS INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909GJ1979PTC003310

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC164129

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC164404

Company & Directors' Information:- B G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC142488

Company & Directors' Information:- S P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC120709

Company & Directors' Information:- P N GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2004PTC127524

Company & Directors' Information:- V P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18109DL2012PTC233293

Company & Directors' Information:- S T GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2015PTC277043

Company & Directors' Information:- P L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2013PTC248417

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC164395

Company & Directors' Information:- R A GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC123385

Company & Directors' Information:- C S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC134787

Company & Directors' Information:- B L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC136912

Company & Directors' Information:- B D S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC137898

Company & Directors' Information:- T G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143392

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U18101DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- G P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC161067

Company & Directors' Information:- I B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2013PTC257044

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U74110DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- A G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51300DL2013PTC257609

Company & Directors' Information:- V R V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2008PTC182256

Company & Directors' Information:- M V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899HR2005PTC141797

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17120HR2013PTC049037

Company & Directors' Information:- V K GARMENTS PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1981PTC012410

Company & Directors' Information:- A S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17212CH1992PTC012350

Company & Directors' Information:- V R GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101CH1991PTC011345

Company & Directors' Information:- S B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2005PTC141954

    CS(OS) NO.1035 OF 2004

    Decided On, 16 March 2006

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

    For the Plaintiffs: Shikha Sachdev, Advocates. For the Defendants: Nemo.



Judgment Text

Anil Kumar, J.


1. This judgment shall dispose of plaintiffs’ suit for permanent injunction, passing off, infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts and damages in respect of their trade mark Lacoste and/or crocodile device and/or Chemise Lacoste.


2. Plaintiffs contended that plaintiff No.1 is a company organized under the laws of France and Mr. S.S. Negi is a constituted attorney duly authorized to sign, verify and institute the plaint on behalf of plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.2 is a company incorporated under the laws of India and Mr. S.S. Negi is also the constituted attorney of plaintiff No.2 and authorized to sign, verify and institute the plaint on behalf of plaintiff No.2.


3. The pleas of the plaintiffs are that they are internationally renowned manufacturer and dealer of clothing articles including T-shirts and are proprietors in India of copyright in artistic work consisting of a device of a crocodile which was prepared by Mr. Robert George and was first published in France in the year 1927. The copyright in the said device is currently valid and subsisting in India and in other parts of the world and plaintiff No.1 is the owner of all rights in the same. The plaintiffs are proprietor in India and have registration in `Lacoste and crocodile device’ and ‘crocodile device’ And both the registration are valid and subsisting. The devices of the plaintiffs are used extensively in India. The plaintiff No.2 is a licensee of plaintiff No.1. The products of the plaintiffs are manufactured to the highest and most stringent quality standards which are more astringent and strict than most of the electronic products. The colour fastness of the products of the plaintiffs is tested to washing at 90’C and it is also checked against Chlorine and light and to wet and dry rubbing and even to acid and alkaline perspiration.


4. The plaintiff averred about the sales of its products since 1993-1994 based on the books of accounts of plaintiff No.2. The plaintiffs also disclosed the sales promotion figures of its products from the books of the accounts of plaintiff No.2. The plaintiffs gave life history of its trade mark `Lacoste’ and `crocodile device’ since early 1930. They contended that for past many decades they have been extensively advertising in several leading international publications, periodicals and other media which also have circulations in India and to which members of Indian public have access. The products of the plaintiffs are available in duty-free shops of most leading international airports around the world. According to plaintiffs in or about September 1997 the plaintiff commenced its anti counterfeiting activities in India.


5. The plaintiffs asserted that on investigation by them, it transpired that the defendants are dealing in counterfeit products bearing registered trade mark of plaintiffs ‘LACOSTE’, ‘CROCODILE’ and ‘CHEMISE LACASTOE’. The defendants were not only using the trade mark ‘Lacoste’ but the labels and T-shirts sold by the defendants also reproduced the crocodile device of the plaintiffs in totality. The defendants have not only infringed the trade mark rights but have also infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs.


6. The plea of the plaintiff is that their internationally renowned goodwill, reputation and fame has been affected adversely by use of any of their marks by any of the traders who are not connected with the plaintiffs in respect of their goods and such counterfeit goods are causing confusion and deception in the minds of consuming public and members of trade. These counterfeit goods have not originated from the plaintiffs nor have they any nexus or affiliation with the persons who are counterfeiting the goods of the plaintiff. Counterfeiting and infringement of their trademark is also leading to dilution of the distinctive character of plaintiffs’ trade mark and their trade marks are being debased and eroded. Reproduction of the artistic work and crocodile device by the defendants amounts to infringement of their copyright which has made the defendants liable to seizure of all the material where the artistic work of the plaintiffs have been reproduced.


7. With these averments, plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction and other relief. On an application of the plaintiffs’, an ex parte interim injunction was granted by order dated 21st September, 2004 and defendants were restrained from using the trade mark ‘LACOSTE’ and ‘Chemise Lacoste’ with ‘CROCODILE’ device and they were also restrained from using the ‘CROCODILE’ device or any other trade mark which is deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiffs’ trade mark. On the applications of the plaintiffs’, Local Commissioners were also appointed to take into possession infringing and counterfeit products found at the premises of the defendants.


8. The Local Commissioners visited the premises of the defendants and seized the infringing and counterfeit goods and instead of giving them on superdari to the defendants, the goods were brought back to Delhi and were kept at M-19A, South Extension Part II, New Delhi and the Local Commissioners filed their reports dated 26.10.2004 and 27th October, 2004


9. Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex parte by order dated 29th September, 2005. The plaintiffs thereafter filed their evidence on affidavit and proved the documents.


10. The plaintiffs’ filed the evidence of Shri Anoop Singh, Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff, who proved and exhibited the power of attorney in his favour as Ex.PW1/1. It was deposed that plaintiff No.1 is a company organized under the laws of France and the plaintiff No.2 is a company organised and existing under the laws of India and that the name of plaintiff No.1 was changed with effect from June 7, 2005 to ‘LACOSTE’. An additional deposition on affidavit of Shri Anoop Singh was also filed deposing that the plaint was signed and verified and instituted by Shri S.S. Negi who was also the constituted attorney of the plaintiff. There was no change in the constitution of the first plaintiff and the documents evidencing change of name of plaintiff No.1 was marked as ‘Mark A’. The deposition of the constituted attorney of the plaintiff was categorical that plaintiff No.1 is an internationally renowned company for its products bearing the trade mark ‘LACOSTE’ and/or ‘CROCODILE’ device. First plaintiff was stated to be the proprietor in India of the trade mark ‘LACOSTE’ and is also the proprietor of copyrights in the artistic work consisting of device of CROCODILE which crocodile device was prepared by one Mr. Robert George and was first published in France in the year 1927.


11. The witness of the plaintiffs categorically stated that the copyright in the artistic work of the CROCODILE device is currently valid and subsisting in India and other parts of the world and the first plaintiff is the present owner of all the rights in the same and the plaintiff No.1 has the exclusive right to reproduce the work in any material from and to obtain relief in respect of infringement of copyrights in the CROCODILE device. The witness of the plaintiff also deposed about the trade marks of the plaintiff in different classes and for different products which according to him have been renewed from time to time and are valid and subsisting. The witness proved the notarized copies of the registration certificate and renewal certificate of the trade marks as Ex.PW1/3.


12. The constituted attorney of the plaintiffs stated that the plaintiff and his predecessors are in business since 1934 and have trade mark registered for LACOSTE and CROCODIEL device in over 206 countries around the world and he proved the not arised copies of world-wide registration certificates for the trade mark LACOSTE and CROCODILE device as Ex.PW1/4. He also deposed about the use of the trade mark device by the plaintiffs in India and that the products of the plaintiffs are used strictly in accordance with the formulae and standards and specifications of plaintiff No.1 and the products are manufactured to the highest and most stringent quality stands in a state of art manufacturing facility at NOIDA. The deposition was also about the quality control measures taken from the grass root level as the yarn is taken from the wealthy source and well-known Vardhman Spinning Mills and the maturity of the fine cotton is strictly in accordance with the specifications of the plaintiff No.1 resulting in cost of production of the yarn being four times the cost of the yarn which is normally used by other manufacturers. The yarn used by the plaintiffs is spun in-house into fabric on specially imported machines and even the spinning is done at a very low speed so as to achieve the right quality of fabric. The fabric is dyed with Vat and reactive dyes and the yarn is put through special processing control before dying so that there is no shrinkage. The buttons used are made of mother of pearl and LACOSTE labels and packaging bags have immaculate quality standards. Finished garments are put through quality control test which are most stringent and the colour fastness is tested at 90 degrees Celsius. The quality of the product is checked against the chlorine and light and to wet and dry rubbing and even to acid and alkaline perspiration. The witness deposed about the sale of the plaintiffs since 1999 till 2005 worldwide as well as the sales in India from 1993 till 2003. The witness proved the not arised copy of the chartered accountant certificate as Ex.PW1/5 and a copy of user agreement between first and second plaintiff was deposed about and marked as ‘Mark B’.


13. Regarding the publicity of their products, the not arised copies of advertisements were proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 and the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs also deposed about the expenditure incurred in promoting the sales of their products worldwide as well as in India.


14. It was categorically deposed on behalf of plaintiffs that on account of extensive sale and sales promotion activities, the trade mark LACOSTE and CROCODILE device are exclusively associated with the plaintiffs and they have been taking actions against the persons and companies who are infringing their trade mark and copyrights and making counterfeit products by filing cases. Certified copies of some of the orders taken against the infringers of trade mark and copyrights were proved and exhibited as PW1/7.


15. The witness of the plaintiffs stated that the activities of the defendants in manufacturing counterfeit products and infringing the trade mark and copyright of the plaintiffs is causing irreparable harm and injury to the plaintiffs’ products which are manufactured with high quality standards and the use of counterfeit products infringing the trade mark and the copyright is diluting the distinctive character of the plaintiffs’ trade mark and plaintiffs’ reputation is at stake and in case the defendants continue to infringe the trade mark and copyright of the plaintiffs’, the loss to their reputation and goodwill will be immense and it will not be compensated adequately monetarily.


15. The plaintiffs’, in the facts and circumstances and on the basis of the documents produced and the deposition of their witnesses, have been able to make out a case for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants from using their trade mark LACOSTE and/or CHEMISE LACOSTE and/or CROCODILE device. It is also inevitable to infer, in the facts and circumstances, that the plaintiffs shall suffer irreparable loss in case the defendants are not restrained from manufacturing counterfeit products and any monetary compensation will not adequately compensate the loss which is caused to the plaintiffs. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is apparent that inconvenience cause to the plaintiffs shall be much more in case the injunction as prayed for by them is not granted restraining defendants from using and infringing their trademark and artistic device and defendants’ passing off their goods as that of plaintiffs.


13. Therefore, a decree of perpetual injunction is passed agains

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t the defendants restraining them from using the trade mark LACOSTE and/or CHEMISE LACOSTE and/or CROCODILE device in respect of any goods manufactured, selling or offering for sale, marketing, advertising, promoting, displaying, using the trade mark of the plaintiffs without any permission and consent and licence of the plaintiffs and infringing the rights of the plaintiffs in any manner and passing off their goods as the goods of the plaintiffs and in any way incorporating the plaintiffs’ trade mark in any manner whatsoever. 14. A decree of mandatory injunction is also passed against the defendants directing them to handover to the plaintiff their goods, packaging and promotional material, catalogues, stationery and any material bearing the plaintiffs’ registered trade mark LACOSTE and/or CHEMISE LACOSTE and/or CROCODILE device and to destroy all products, labels, signs, prints, packages, moulds, plates, dies, wrappers, receptacles bearing plaintiffs’ trade mark LACOSTE and/or CHEMISE LACOSTE and/or CROCODILE device. The goods seized by the Local Commissioner are also allowed to be taken by the plaintiff bearing the trade mark LACOSTE and/or CHEMISE LACOSTE and/or CROCODILE device and are allowed to be destroyed. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiffs and against the defendants. 15. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

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
03-01-2020 The General Manager, Aleppy Parcel Service, Alappuzha Versus Anil Kumar V., Managing Partner, Wetex Garments, Poovattuparamba, Kozhikode Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
22-11-2019 The Management Scotts Garments Limited, Trippur Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-10-2019 M/s. PJS Knit Garments, Rep.by its Partner, P. Sugansaran & Another Versus The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Tirupur Main Branch, Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2019 M/s. Indo Skins Garments Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, N. Thiagarajan, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2019 The Officer In Charge, Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office & Another Versus M/s Godavari Garments Limited Supreme Court of India
05-04-2019 The District Collector, Kanchipuram Versus M/s. Gupta Garments, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Anil Gupta & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 M/s. Ginni Garments & Another Versus M/s. Sethi Garments & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
04-04-2019 Ginni Garments and Others V/S Sethi Garments and Others. In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
13-03-2019 The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Salem Division & Others Versus M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor Ibrahim Sha, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-12-2018 Batra Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-12-2018 Goodluck Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus., Surat-II High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-09-2018 M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor, Ibrahim Sha, Chennai Versus The Divisional Railway Manager, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2018 Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (Now ECGC Limited), Chennai & Another Versus Zoro Garments Private Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, N.F. Mogrella High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 M/s. Rasathe Garments, Rep by its Partner, Virudhunagar Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I, Virudhunagar High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 Bord for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) Versus Coromandel Garments Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-04-2018 M/s. Sri Rengas Avitta Garments, Represented by its Partner, R. Rajaram & Another Versus R. Indira High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2018 Kandukuri Garments Versus Inspector of Legal Metrology High Court of Karnataka
02-01-2018 A. Velumurugan Versus M/s. Sree Shiva Sakthi Garments, Represented by its Partner Venkatachalam, Tiruppur High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-07-2017 Creative Garments Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E. & S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
10-02-2017 The Management of Foundation Garments Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director ?Divine Grace? Versus Government of Tamil Nadu Labour & Employment (A1) Department, Represented by its Principal Secretary High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-01-2017 R.K. Rajkumar Proprietor M/s. Koghima Garments Versus The Registrar Debts Recovery Tribunal - III Spencer Towers Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2017 Kitex Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director-Sabu M. Jacob Versus State of Kerala, represented by Principal Secretary To Government, Taxes (H) Department & Another High Court of Kerala
02-01-2017 Sonal Garments V/S Commr. of Cus., Seaport (Import), Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
15-09-2016 M/s. Rasathe Garments Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I (FAC) Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-09-2016 Carol Garments & Another Versus The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-06-2016 M/s. Oxygen the Digital Shop, Pulimoottil Arcade, Kottayam & Another Versus Namadevan.L., Anna Garments & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
12-02-2016 M/s. Anjal Garments Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2015 Provident Fund Commissioner Versus M/s. Bena Garments High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2015 M/s. Triven Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director & Others Versus State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2015 SCM Garments (P.) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-III, Coimbatore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
18-12-2014 Nelly Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
26-11-2014 Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-II Versus Ankit Garments Manufacturing Co. High Court of Delhi
07-11-2014 KMC Textiles & Garments, rep.by its Proprietor, Shaj Mohammed Versus The Chief Manager & Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Trichy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-10-2014 Board of Investment of Sri Lanka Versus Million Garments (PVT) Ltd. Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
28-08-2014 Sakthi Fashions, Manufacturers & Exporters of Fabrics and Garments, Represented by its Proprietrix Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, Represented by its General Manager Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
11-06-2014 National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus M/s. Ess Ell Garments Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
01-05-2014 Sri Priyaluckshmi Garments Represented by Mrs. G. Mahalakshmi, Partner & Others Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-04-2014 Vijay Karlekar, Proprietor, M/s. New Keerthi Garments & Another Versus Karnataka State Financial Corporation & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-04-2014 In Re Jagadamba Garments Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-02-2014 M/s. Lakshya Garments through its Proprietor Versus National Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-09-2013 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Versus M/s. Anjali Silks & Garments High Court of Karnataka
26-04-2013 M/s. Viking Garments, (A Partnership Firm) Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-04-2013 A.J. Ramadoss Versus S. Padmavathy and N. Sankar(spouse) Om Siva Sakthi Garments National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-11-2012 CC&CE, Guntur Versus M/s. Kandukuri Garments (P) Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
12-10-2012 M/s. C.S. Garments & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2012 Commissioner of Income Tax Versus First Garments Manufacturing Co. India (P) Ltd High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-06-2012 M/s. Amex Garments Pvt. Ltd. Ekkattuthangal, Guindy, Rep. by Director Versus The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2012 M/s. Kitex Garments Ltd. Versus CC, Cochin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
23-12-2011 M/S. Shyam Garments & Others Versus State Bank Of India High Court of Delhi
09-11-2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Koregaon Branch Soham Bldg., Rahimatpur Road, Koregaon, Dist. Versus M/s. Prinita Garments Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
03-11-2011 Levi Strauss & Company Versus Nizami Garments High Court of Delhi
25-07-2011 Commissioner of Customs Versus Kitex Garments High Court of Kerala
14-07-2011 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Somesh Readymade Garments National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-04-2011 Anthony Garments Pvt., Ltd., Represented by A. Joseph Antony, Managing Director Versus The Commercial Tax Officer & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-03-2011 M/s.Gayatri Garments Represented by its proprietor Shri.B.Selvakumar Versus Smt.S.Valambal, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2011 M/s. V.K.T. Rajkumar Garments Versus The Colonel, Colonel Administration for Commendent, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2010 M/s. T.K.T. Garments Versus The Manager Sri Balaji Transport Lines & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-10-2010 Dandy Garments Erode Versus The Employees State Insurance Corpn & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2010 M/s. Shyam Garments & Others V/S State Bank of India Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Delhi
18-08-2010 Tvl. V. Win Garments Rep. by its Proprietor Versus The Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-08-2010 M/s. Stallion Garments Versus CC, Tuticorin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
30-07-2010 M/s. Muthuraman Exports (Presently known as M/s. Perfect Stitch Garments P Ltd) Versus The Customs & Central Excise & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-07-2010 Vijay S/o Shamrao Bhale Versus Godavari Garments Ltd. & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-03-2010 Peoples Bank Versus Lokuge International Garments Ltd. Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
18-02-2010 The Management of M/s. Stallion Garments Versus The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2010 M/s. Fine Fit Garments Versus CC, Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
04-01-2010 M/s Shri Ram Garments & Another & Accessories Versus CCE, Meerut Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-08-2009 M/s. Bhakti Garments Versus Subhash B. Vishwakarma In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-06-2009 Riya Garments Private Limited v/s Pratap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Laminations Limited and Others Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Delhi
20-05-2009 Awadheswari Prasad Narain Singh Versus Priti Garments Patna High Court of Bihar
16-05-2009 Persian Leather Garments Versus Commissioner, Industries & Commerce & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
17-04-2009 Chander Sain & Others Versus J.B. Garments High Court of Delhi
24-02-2009 Kitex Garments Ltd., Versus State Of Kerala High Court of Kerala
05-01-2009 Futuristics Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
18-12-2008 I.T.C. Limited Versus Deepak Garments High Court of Delhi
23-09-2008 Southern Export Corporation A. Rajagopalan Versus Vijayseema Garments And Hosiery Private Limited High Court of Delhi
26-06-2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Ashapura Garments Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-08-2007 CCE Salem Versus V.Tex Garments Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
09-08-2007 P. Vijaya Raghunathan Versus M/s. Green Cotton Garments rep. by its Managing Directors & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-03-2007 Garments India Exports and Another v/s Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited and Another Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Chennai
15-02-2007 Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation Versus J.S. Garments High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-01-2007 Elegant Garments Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-12-2006 (1) In Re : Rbr Knit Process Private Limited; (2) In Re :Rbr Clothings Private Limited; (3) In Re : Rbr Garments Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-10-2006 Angel Garments Limited Versus DIT (International Taxation)Chennai Authority For Advance Rulings Income Tax New Delhi
26-10-2006 Kerala Textile and Garments Dealer Welfare Association and Another Versus The State of Kerale High Court of Kerala
14-03-2006 Rita Garments Versus Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj High Court of Delhi
19-08-2005 Sundaram Finance Services Ltd., rep. by its President, the Principal Officer, having its Office at Deshabandhu Plaza, No. 47, Whites Road, Chennai Versus Shoba Garments (P) Ltd., No. 127-B, Brickkiln Road, Norton Shanmuga Building, II Floor, Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 007 and others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-11-2004 MERBANC FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, PANJAGUTTA VERSUS CHILIPI KRISH GARMENTS (P) LTD. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-07-2004 Garments India Exporters Versus Director of Enforcement Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange New Delhi
21-06-2004 M/s.S.M. Garments Private Limited Versus Inspector General of Registration & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2004 Radhamani India Ltd., Decree-holder Versus Imperial Garments Ltd High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-03-2004 Venkateshwara Garments and Exports and Another V/S Dena Bank Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
07-11-2003 Modesty Garments Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
10-02-2003 M/s.Amarjothi Spinning Mills Ltd. Versus M/s. B.R.B.Garments High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2002 The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, rep. by its Madras North Branch Senior Manager Versus M.S. Gopal, Proprietor, Suki Garments & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2002 M/s. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-08-2002 Sonal Garments Versus Trimbak Shankar Karve High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2002 M/s. Chevron Garments (P) Ltd. 1986 Trichy Main Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore, Rep. by its Managing Director S. Ramanathan Versus Sri Malini Spinning Mills Ltd. (Formerly P.A. Mills Ltd.) Trichy Main Road, Ammapalayam Village Sandhiyur, Attayampatty (via) Mallur, Salem-636 203. Rep. by its Chief Accountant K.S.S. Prakaash High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2002 Plaza Garments Versus Textile Apparels High Court of Delhi