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



Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. v/s Pankaj Chandgothia & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- PANKAJ INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51100GJ1993PTC019396

Company & Directors' Information:- L T INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1999PLC097892

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

Company & Directors' Information:- PANKAJ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1996PTC081277

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

Company & Directors' Information:- PANKAJ PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29130RJ1985PTC003463

Company & Directors' Information:- P V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1998PTC094598

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066228

Company & Directors' Information:- C & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1982PTC026718

Company & Directors' Information:- W-LIFESTYLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29300DL2012PTC238204

    Appeal No. 24 of 2019

    Decided On, 18 March 2019

    At, Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)
    By, PRESIDENT
    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY
    By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. RAJESH K. ARYA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Rohan Mittal, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate, R2, In person and husband.



Judgment Text

Rajesh K. Arya, Members

The appellant/opposite party has filed this appeal against order dated 3.1.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, complaint bearing No. 438 of 2018 filed by the respondents/complainants was allowed in the following manner:

“12. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Party is directed:

(i) To provide free carry bags to all customers forthwith who purchase articles from its shop;

(ii) To refund to the Complainants the amount of Rs. 5 wrongly charged for the paper carry bag;

(iii) To pay Rs. 1,500 to the complainants towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.

(iv)To pay Rs. 1,500 as litigation expenses.

(v) To deposit Rs. 10,000 in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No. 32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.

This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall be liable to pay the amount at Sr. Nos. (ii) to (iv) to the complainants along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till its realization, besides compliance of directions as at Sr. No. (i). The amount mentioned at Sr. No. (v) be deposited in the account aforesaid, within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the same will carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till its deposit. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary (SCDRC), U.T. Chandigarh, for necessary action.

2. Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that the complainants purchased certain articles from the opposite party-Shop and took them to the billing counter for making necessary payment. At the Counter, the Cashier handed over the said articles without putting them into a carry bag and when asked to provide the same, the complainants were told that they had to buy it for Rs. 5. It was further stated that in the entire shop premises, it was nowhere mentioned that the opposite party would charge for a carry bag also. It was further stated that having no option left, the complainants paid Rs. 5 additionally for the said carry bag. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, a complaint was filed before the Forum.

3. The opposite party, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that after the ban of plastic bags by the Government, the opposite party purchased paper bags, which are much costlier than the plastic bags and started providing the same to its customers on payment basis. It was further stated that there was no legal obligation on the opposite party to provide any bag to carry purchased item for free to its customers. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite party nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4. The complainant filed rejoinder wherein he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those contained in the written version of opposite party.

5. The parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint as referred to above.

6. While laying challenge to the impugned order, the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party argued that the appellant/opposite party is a retail store and as such, it does not fall within the purview of ‘service’ as contemplated in Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act. It was next argued that as per Rule 10 of The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, under the heading ‘Explicit Pricing of carry bags, no carry bags shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers and the concerned Municipal Authority shall determine the minimum price for carry bags depending upon their quality and size, which covers their material and waste management costs in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation. It was further argued that as per Rule 15 of The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016, published vide notification dated 18.3.2016, issued by Ministry of Environments and Forests, retailers have been specifically barred from making plastic bags available to customers free of cost and it is mandatory for retailers to charge for plastic carry bags. It was further argued that the main objective and intent behind such a direction was to limit and discourage indiscriminate use of plastic bags which are hazardous to our environment and as such, the direction of the Forum in directing the appellant/opposite party to provide free carry bags to all the customers was wrong and in violation of law and public policy. It was also argued that by charging for the paper bag, the appellant was only doing so in order to discourage the use of disposable bags and lessen the strain on the environment. It was next argued that the sale of paper bags by the appellant has a greater negative impact on the appellant/ opposite party itself and rather than on any consumer.

7. It was next argued that the Forum erroneously opined that the appellant/opposite party is obligated to provide a carry bag free of cost to the respondents/complainants to carry the goods purchased. It was argued that there is no such legal obligation on the appellant/opposite party and the respondents/complainants are free to carry the goods so purchased in their own carry bag or in any manner that suits him best. It was further argued that the Forum failed to appreciate that in the absence of any law prohibiting the sale of carry bags, the appellant/opposite party was well within the bounds of law to charge for the same. It was further argued that on the amount collected through the sale of carry bags, the appellant/opposite party pays the Government the requisite taxes, which fact the Forum also failed to appreciate. Lastly, prayer for setting aside the impugned order has been made.

8. On the other hand, respondent No. 1/complainant No. 1 on his behalf and on behalf of his wife who is respondent No. 2/complainant No. 2, while defending the impugned order passed by the Forum, argued that Rule 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016, on which, reliance has been placed by the appellant/opposite party, has already been omitted vide Notification dated 27.3.2018. He also argued that it is nowhere displayed in the shop premises of the appellant/opposite parties, either at the entry gate or in the showroom that the customers can carry the goods purchased from the appellant/opposite party in their own carry bags or they are allowed to bring their own carry bags inside the showroom. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the impugned order passed by the Forum be upheld.

9. After going through the evidence on record and submissions of the Counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

10. As regards the first objection that the appellant/opposite party being a retail store does not fall within the purview of ‘service’ as contemplated in Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, it may be stated here that the respondents/complainants purchased goods including the paper carry bag from the appellant/opposite party against consideration paid and as such, the respondents/ complainants are undoubtedly consumers under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the appellant/opposite party is a service provider and very much covered under the aforesaid definition of ‘service’. The objection raised stands rejected being not tenable.

11. So far as reliance placed by the appellant/opposite party on Rule 10 of The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 and Rule 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016, published vide notification dated 18.3.2016, issued by Ministry of Environments and Forests is concerned, we would like to first extract the aforesaid Rule hereunder:

“10. Explicit pricing of carry bags—No carry bag shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers. The concerned municipal authority may by notification determine the minimum price for carry bags depending upon their quality and size which covers their material and waste management cost in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation.”

“15. Explicit pricing of carry bags—(1) The shopkeepers and street vendors willing to provide plastic carry bags for dispensing any commodity shall register with local body. The local body shall, within a period of six months from the date of final publication of these rules in the Official Gazettee of India notification of these rules, by notification or an order under their appropriate state statute or bye-laws shall make provisions for such registration on payment of plastic waste management fee of minimum rupees forty eight thousand @ rupees for thousand per month. The concerned local body may prescribe higher plastic waste management fee, depending upon the sale capacity. The registered shop keepers shall display at prominent place that plastic carry bags are given on payment.”

12. It may be stated here that no doubt, as per Rule 10 of The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, no carry bags were to be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers but thereafter, in the year 2016, the aforesaid Rules were amended vide notification dated 18.3.2016 to be read as Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016. It is important to mention here that the aforesaid Rule 15 of Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016 was omitted vide subsequent Notification dated 27.3.2018 and as such, the appellant/opposite party cannot take shelter of the said rule. Since the mandate for retailers to charge for plastic carry bags has been omitted in March 2018, therefore, its contention that it could charge for paper carry bags is totally against law and has no legs to stand.

13. With all concern, we must say that charging for paper carry bags is totally against consumerism. First of all, it is nowhere the plea of the appellant/opposite party that it has displayed in the shop premises or at the entry gate that the customers can bring their own carry bags to carry the goods purchased from the appellant/opposite party. We have seen that in these days, it is general practice prevalent in the market that if a person who goes to the shop premises like the appellant/opposite party to buy some goods, he/she is not allowed to enter the said shop premises with any carry bag. The same are kept at the entry door by the security person standing at the door. In case, the security person standing at the entry allows to do so, he staples the same so that no other product is put in the said carry bag. A person who buys some articles/products from the shop premises like the appellant/opposite party is expected to be provided with free carry bag to carry those articles up to his car of destination or he/she should be allowed to bring his/her own carry bag inside the shop premises. Not only this, the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party failed to show any provision of law/rules/regulations, which gives such an authority to the appellant/opposite party, not to allow the customers to bring their own carry bags inside the shop premises of the appellant/opposite party.

14. Further, the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party conceded that it is nowhere displayed in the shop premises of the appellant/opposite parties, either at the entry gate or in the shop premises, that the customers can carry the goods purchased from the appellant/opposite party in their own carry bags or they are allowed to bring their own carry bags inside the showroom. However, the argument raised by the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party was that one should adopt the practice of taking articles without bag out of the shop so that even paper bags can be saved. We are surprised to hear such kind of argument.

15. Not only above, the carry bags, which are sold by the appellant/opposite party bear its logo on both sides and the customer who is buying the same is in fact publicizing the brand of the appellant/opposite party and thereby becomes a brand ambassador. On the other hand, charging for the said paper carry bag by the appellant/opposite party amounted to unfair trade practice. It is so rightly observed by the Forum in Paras 10 of its order as under:

“10. It is noteworthy that said carry bag for which the Complainants had to shell out extra amount from their pocket, is a printed carry bag on both sides, which has a prominent display of the advertisement of the Opposite Party and is thus apparently serving as an advertisement for them, whenever the said bag is carried by the Consumer. In this manner, the Complainants and other gullible consumers like them have certainly been taken for a ride by the Opposite Party for advertising their name. Undoubtedly, the Opposite Party has several stores across the country and in the above said manner, made lot of money, thus, the act of Opposite Party by forcing the gullible consumers to pay additionally for the paper bags is surely and certainly amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

unfair trade practice.” 16. We also concur with the findings given by the Forum in Para 10 of its order that there was highhandedness on the part of the appellant/opposite party of which the respondents/complainants became the victim, which aggravated their pain and harassment. In our considered opinion, the Forum rightly directed the appellant/opposite party to provide free carry bags to all customers forthwith who purchase articles from its shop besides refund of Rs. 5, which it wrongly charged from the respondents/complainants for the paper carry bag. It also rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,500 each towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. Besides above, an amount of Rs.10,000 has also been rightly directed to be deposited by the appellant/opposite party in Consumer Legal Aid Account. 17. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 18. No other point was raised by respondent No. 1/complainant No. 1 and Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. 19. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld. 20. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge. 21. File be consigned to the Record Room after completion. Appeal dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

27-08-2020 M/s. Web International Cargo Ltd., Rep. by its proprietor Srinivas P. Bhat Versus M/s. Magnum Logistics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Jayaram High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. & Another Versus Unwired Planet International Ltd. & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
24-08-2020 The Director of Income-Tax International Taxation, Bangalore & Another Versus The Executive Engineer, M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-08-2020 Pankaj Chaudhary, HCS, Special Secretary, Public Health Engineer Department Versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
20-08-2020 M/s. Life Cell International Private Limited, Represented by its Company Secretary D. Mahesh, Chennai Versus Vinay Katrela High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
17-07-2020 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Delhi International Airport Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-07-2020 Paras International Exports Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
06-07-2020 Aruna Oswal Versus Pankaj Oswal & Others Supreme Court of India
29-06-2020 Coromandel International Ltd. (Earlier Known As Coromandel Fertillisers Ltd.) Through its Authorized Representative, Vishakhapatnam & Others Versus Kamrubai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 IRCON International Ltd. Versus M/s. Meumal Athwani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-06-2020 Pankaj Kumar Choudhary @ Pankaj Kumar Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
23-06-2020 M/s. Angelique International Limited Versus Public Electricity Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
23-06-2020 Pankaj Aggarwal Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
12-06-2020 Pankaj Jain Versus Parul Jain High Court of Delhi
12-06-2020 Aberdeen Asia Pacific Including Japan Equity Fund Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1(1)(1) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
10-06-2020 Hotel Nikhil Sai International Bar & Restaurant Versus Assistant Commissioner ST Audit & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-06-2020 Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Sri Vinayaka Caterors & Consultants, Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partners, K. Eshwar Versus The Executive Warden, International Hostels, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-05-2020 Pankaj Versus State, Through PP High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
19-05-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-05-2020 Pankaj Versus State High Court of Delhi
04-05-2020 Bhansali Productions Pvt.Ltd. Versus Eros International Medial Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2020 M/s. Inter Ads Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. Versus Busworld International Cooperatieve Vennootschap Met Beperkte Anasprakelijkheid High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. Versus Axiom Cordages Limited (Previously Known as Axion Impex International Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-04-2020 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, Having Registered Office at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory Nixon Varghese Versus Kannur International Airport Limited, Mattannur, Represented by Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
15-04-2020 Pankaj Rajmachikar Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 Dr. Rajesh Jhorawat Versus Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd. V/S Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-03-2020 M/s. Meyer Apparel Ltd. Versus M/s. Panchanan International Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-03-2020 Pankaj Kumar Singh Versus National Thermal Power Corp Ltd. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
03-03-2020 Cambridge International School & Another Versus Priyanka Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
28-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd. & Another Versus Banothu Rangamma & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
27-02-2020 Perfect Synergy Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sagar Infra Rail International Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
24-02-2020 Saurabh Kar & Another Versus Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
19-02-2020 Krishnaveni Rai Versus Pankaj Rai & Another Supreme Court of India
19-02-2020 SSIPL Lifestyle Private Limited Versus Vama Apparels (India) Private Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
19-02-2020 M/s. Pankaj Trading Company Proprietor Mr. Manoj Jain & Others Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 APS Forex Services Private Limited Versus Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Finance Controller, TN Rajan & Another Versus Banothu Tharya & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
11-02-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus C.R. Sons Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
07-02-2020 Swastik Builders, Satyam Apartments Next to Rowell Continental (Sunny International) & Others Versus Dr. Shobha & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-02-2020 M/s. Texcel International Pvt. Ltd., Sengundram Industrial Area (Near Ford India Ltd.,), Chengalpattu Versus M/s. Chennai Steel Tubes, Rep.by one of its Partner, G. Bhavanishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Real Pro Assets Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director Chandigarh Versus Pankaj Mittal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-01-2020 Alstom T&D India Ltd., Formerly known as Areva T&D India Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Rep. by its authorized signatory, Padappai Versus M/s. Texcel International Pvt., Ltd., Represented by Mukunthan C.O.O, Chengalpattu High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Others Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
27-01-2020 Pankaj Kumar Versus Praveen Jain High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
27-01-2020 Hotel Soorya International, Represented by its Partner, S. Arumugam Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 M/s. IRCON International Limited, (A Government of India Undertaking), Rep. by its Joint General Manager(South), Bangalore Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintending Engineer(H), Villupuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Pankaj Behari Saha V/S The State of Tripura, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura
14-01-2020 Export Import Bank of India & Another Versus Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-01-2020 International Car and Motors Ltd. Versus Shyam Sundar Sen & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-01-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
13-01-2020 Union of India rep. By its Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai Versus M/s. Raiments & Garments International, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 Maj Pankaj Rai Versus Krishna Veni Rai, Nee Krishnaveni Challa High Court of for the State of Telangana
07-01-2020 V. Pankaj Versus S. Gopalakrishnan High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 M/s. Prime Gold International Limited, Represented by its Director Achin Aggarwal & Another Versus The Additional Director General, The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Coimbatore Zonal Unit, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 Pankaj Garg Versus DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 Phoenix International Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
04-01-2020 HDFC Bank Limited V/S KPG International Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
19-12-2019 J. John Winfred Versus International Airport Authority of India Rep. By Airport Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 M/s. Saravana International, Rep. by its Proprietor C.R. Devanathan, Panruti Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panruti High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 Moets Catering Services Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Bindra Versus Dr. Ambedkar International Center & Others High Court of Delhi
10-12-2019 Union of India & Others Versus Pankaj Kumar High Court of Madhya Pradesh
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 M/s. N.V. International Versus State of Assam & Others Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 Pankaj Dadarao Ambadkar Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
13-11-2019 Shaji B. John, Kings International Ltd., Quilon & Others Versus The Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Cochin, Represented by Its Secretary, Dr. G. Santhanakrishnan High Court of Kerala
07-11-2019 New India Assurance Company Limited & Others Versus Pankaj Mehta & Others High Court of Rajasthan
07-11-2019 SPT International & Finance Ltd. Versus Bank of Baroda & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-10-2019 M/s. Usha International Ltd., Represented by its Chief Operating Officer, Haryana Versus Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-10-2019 M/s. EOS GmbH-India Branch, Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Prakasam Anand (Country Manager), Kolathur Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-10-2019 Head Legal, Gmr Hyd International Airport Ltd. Versus Registrar, Airports Economic Regulatory Appellate Tribunal 2 High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-10-2019 K.P.L. International Limited, Represented by it Senior Vice President, R.P. Mundra Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Saidapet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2019 M.L. Kumawat & Another Versus Bharat Bio Tech International Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-09-2019 Chennai Port Trust Versus Chennai International Terminals Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 Ajit Ravi Versus Cochin International Airport Ltd. High Court of Kerala
20-09-2019 International Society for Krishna Consciousness Versus Ishwari Prasad Singh Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-09-2019 Dharam Vir & Others Versus BGS International Public School & Others High Court of Delhi
18-09-2019 The Management of M/s. International Travel House Limited, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2019 Pankaj @ Pankaj Kumar Rai & Others Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
02-09-2019 Pankaj Alias Bobby & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
29-08-2019 M/s. Kadimi International Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited High Court of Delhi
27-08-2019 Yun Zhang & Others Versus Sealegs International Limited Court of Appeal of New Zealand
27-08-2019 Central Board of Secondary Education, Application Branch, Shiksha Kendra, Delhi, Represented by its Secretary Versus Manager, Bethlehem International, Vazhakulam, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
20-08-2019 Pankaj Kumar Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
19-08-2019 International Flavours & Fragrances India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Office of the Advocate General, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
09-08-2019 Glencore International AG Versus Indian Potash Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
07-08-2019 K. Mahendran, Trincomalee Versus Deutche Welle Radio and TV International, Colombo Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
07-08-2019 Sphere International, a proprietorship concern through its proprietor Rakesh Jalan Versus Ecopack India Paper Cup Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-08-2019 San International Business School, Rep.by its Chairman, T. Jayalakshmi Versus The Director, Centre for Affiliation of Institutions, Anna University, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2019 M/s. Kuldip Singh Sethi & Gagan Goyal Versus Ecole Globale International Girls School High Court of Uttarakhand
29-07-2019 Bently Nevada LLC Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) (2), International Taxation & Another High Court of Delhi
23-07-2019 KAS International, Represented by its Proprietor, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Purasawalkam Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras