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



Madhav Marbles & Granites v/s Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- MADHAV MARBLES AND GRANITES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L14101RJ1989PLC004903

Company & Directors' Information:- MADHAV CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202GJ2006PTC049546

Company & Directors' Information:- G R MARBLES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U14101RJ1990PTC005353

Company & Directors' Information:- A P GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U14102TG1995PTC021475

Company & Directors' Information:- AT GRANITES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U14200TG2010PTC071741

Company & Directors' Information:- V GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26940TN2008PTC066786

    Civil Writ Petition No. 8428 of 2010

    Decided On, 19 December 2011

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

    For the Petitioner: Anurag Kalavatiya on behalf of Sanjay Jhanwar & Arun Bhansali, Advocates. For the Respondents: K.K. Bissa, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Vineet Kothari, J.

1. The petitioner - assessee has filed this writ petition before this Court aggrieved by the order Annex - 1 dated 27.04.2010 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur rejecting its Misc. Application No.22/JU/2009 in ITA No.929/JU/07 for assessment year 1999 - 2000 filed by the assessee under Section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act').

2. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2,29,70,959/- on account of bad advances written off to the extent of 1,82,89,333/- and bad debts written off to the extent of 46,81,625.88. The Assessing Authority vide his assessment order Annex-3 dated 26.12.2006 disallowed the said deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. However, the first appellate authority, namely, C.I.T. (Appeals) on an appeal filed by the assessee, allowed the said deduction vide his order Annex - 4 dated 16.05.2007. The revenue went up in second appeal before the earned I.T.A.T., which allowed the Revenue's appeal vide its order Annex - 2 dated 30.05.2008, the relevant paras 12 to 14 of the Tribunal's order are reproduced herein below for ready reference:

"12. Briefly staled the facts of the case are that the assessee company :is engaged in the export of marble tiles and granite slabs and tiles. It had claimed an income of Rs. 1, 75,31,353/- exempt u/s 10B in respect of granite division. Return of income showing total loss of Rs. 1,87 13,205/- was filed on 31.12.1999 accompanied by by Tax Audit Report in Form (sic).3CD. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 16.2.2000. Later on the case was (sic) issuing (sic) 148 of the Act. 'The assessee reduced a sum of Rs. 2,29,70,959/- as doubtful advances/debts written off during the year in the P&L account This list of doubtful debts with S. No. name of part(sic) purpose and amount is given at pages 6 to 9 of the impugned order from which the AO found that three parties, namely, M/s Jalkanta Technical and Financial Services P. Ltd. M/s Aun Construction and M/s Jain Industries belonged 'to Ganjendra Porwal Group, which was found to be an entry provider in the search conducted by the Inv. Wing, Udaipur on 11.3.2005. For this purpose, he was running a number of concerns through which these accommodation entries have been provided to various parties at different places. Shri Gajendra Porwal admitted that the accommodation entries were provided by hiking cash equivalent to the amount of accommodation entries and the same were deposited in their bank account Thereafter, the cheques for accommodations were issued to the concerned parties. Thereafter the cheques for accommodations were issued to the concerned parties. He further admitted that normally the commission ranged between 0.5% to 2% of the accommodation entry amount charged by him and such commission was received in cash, which remained undisclosed and offered for tax. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, the AO concluded that the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence in respect of efforts/steps taken for the recovery of alleged advances Advances to the tune of Rs. 60,12,292 show in respect of concerns belonging to Rajendra Porwal Group has beet; proved as entry provider and advances to the tune of Rs. 67,20,000/- have been shown in respect of (sic) which are not traceable. Reiterating the same facts and reasoning in the case of advance for raw material, the AO disallowed Rs. 2,29,70,959/- and added to total income of the assessee.

13. The ld CIT (A), by considering the appeal of the assessee found that the advance for raw material has been given in accounting year 1993 - 94. 1994 - 95, 1996 - 97 and 1997 - 98, advances tor consumable in accounting year 1996 - 97 advance for professional fees paid in the accounting year 1997 - 98. cancellation, visa and misc. in account year 1993 - 94. advance against energy consumption to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in 1993 - 94, advances in cases of sundry debtors persons to accounting wars 1993 - 94, 1994 - 95, 1996 - 97 and 1997 - 98. Hire charges received in account year 1995 - 96, sale of advance licences in 1995 - 96. Advance to M/s Jalkanta Technical and Financial Services P. Ltd., M/s Aun Construction and M/s Jain Industries were given for purchases of raw material in accounting year 1994 - 95 and 1995 - 96. In case of employees they have left the organization. In case of three concerns of Gajendra Porwal Group, the advances were given in accounting year 1994 - 95 and 1995 - 96 for purchase of raw material. There was a search in the place of Porwal group on 11.3.2005. Therefore, the transaction was found to be 10 years old. Apart from that. Shri Gajendra Porwal admitted that the accommodation entries were provided by taking cash equivalent to the amount of accommodation entries and the (sic) were (sic) in their bank account Thereafter the cheques for accommodations were issued to the concerned parties. He further admitted that normally the commission ranged between 0.5% to 2% of the accommodation entry amount charged by him and such commission was received in cash But in the case of the assessee, the issue is just reverse, The appellant has given the advance for purchase of row material und not taken any loan/share application money, gift or share capital subscription. The ld. CIT (A), therefore, concluded that there was no question of taking accommodation entry from the above three concerns of Gajendra Porwal Group. These are real transactions taking place long back in A. Y. 1994 - 95 and 1995 - 96. It was further noticed by the ld CIT (A) that Shri Porwal has not specified the accounting year from which he has started this business of providing income modation entries to the needy parties. The ld. CIT (A) farther observed that as per the amended provisions of see. 30 (1) (vii) it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the had debt or part thereof as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessed for the previous year for claiming bad debt deduction. Bad debt written off by the assessee was approved by the Board of Directors by resolution held on 1.7.1999 as per the comments of the Statutory Auditors, It was also observed by the ld. CIT (A) that the percentage of bad debts written off comes to 1.91% of the turnover of the assessee. Thereby the rate of bad debts will not have any impact on the profit/tax liability of the assessee more so for the period under consideration the assessee is entitled for 100% relief u/s 80HHC. It is further noted that the assessee has not claimed deduction u/s 80IA or 80IG while computing tax on income in the hands of the assessee. Thus concluding, he found that the disallowance made by the At) is not sustainable and accordingly he allowed the claim of the assessee directing the AO to delete the same. Aggrieved by that, this appeal is filed by the department contending inter alia that the observation of the Id. CIT (A) that all these are pertaining to advances made by the assessee and that too for a very very long time back to (sic) of 10 years when the department has not objected to the period in which they were made or till the present period under consideration cannot be taken into account for the simple reason that when the advances were made the department need not examine the same us the assessee will not claim an Allowable expenditure during these periods. But at the same time, during the period under consideration as the department can examine the sustainability of advance sought by the assessee and at the same time the department has also to see whether the assessee has proved that all these are related to the business activities carried on by the assessee. If the AO is satisfied with the above ingredients, then only he can allow deduction claimed by the assessee. But in the ld. CIT (A)'s order nowhere this aspect of the issue was found satisfied by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings or before the ld CIT (A). The id. CIT (A) also has not considered this issue in this line even though this is an important aspect for sustaining the claim of the assessee of bad debts or part thereof is written off or of any previous year. This part of the ingredient having not been satisfied by the assessee, the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances, he sought for setting aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and restoring that of the AO by allowing the ground raised by the department.

14. On careful analysis of the material made available before the Tribunal and in the light of rival submissions of both the parties, it is found that undisputedly the bad debts represent advances made by the assessee as long back as 10 years prior to the period under consideration and they were not required to be examined in those periods as the assessee (sic) of the business. Since, the assessee is claiming them as allowable as they became irrecoverable, he has to establish primarily that all are related and having nexus to the business curried on by the assessee and also while computing the income of the period when they were given that these transactions were taken into account while arriving at profit chargeable to tax. (This is when Tribunal has given fallacious reasoning). Both the ingredients were not satisfied by the assessee before the departmental authorities. Therefore the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee where (sic) the ld. CIT (A) while deleting the disallowance make by the AO has observed that, they there are only old (sic) and were not considered and objected by the AO during those periods when they were advanced cannot he a ground for allowing claim of the assessee as the assessee has so first prove that the transactions made are related and having nexus to the business carried on by the assessee and also that they were considered while returning the profit for the concerned period in which advances were made while arriving at profit chargeable to tax during those periods. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that since the assessee has not satisfied the ingredients required for claiming the deduction in question, is not entitled for the same. (Amendment in law w.e.f. 1.4.1989 not even considered by Tribunal even though the same was taken into account by CIT (Appeals)). Therefore, in this view of the matter as the ld. CIT (A) rested his decision on the basis of unreasonable findings we find that the ld. CIT (A) 's order in directing the deletion of disallowance made by the AO is not sustainable for legal scrutiny. Hence we set aside the same by holding that the assessee having not proved the chain made by it as required under law, is not entitled for the same. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the department by accenting the ground in appeal raised by it.

3. The learned Tribunal held that such bad advances or bad debts could not be claimed as deduction since the assessee has failed to establish primarily that such advances are related and having a nexus to the business carried out by it and also while computing the income for the period when they were given and that these transaction were taken into account while computing the profit chargeable to the tax. Both the ingredients were not satisfied by the assessee before the departmental authorities. Accordingly, the Tribunal disallowed this deduction for the assessment year 1999-2000.

4. The assessee filed misc. application under Section 254(2) the Act seeking (sic)edification of the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 30.05.2008 but the said misc. application also came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal by its impugned order Annex-1 dated 27.04.2010.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred this writ petition before this Court for quashing of order dated 27.04.2010 Annex I of learned Tribunal and said writ petition was filed on 06.09.2010.

6. The Revenue has not filed any reply to the writ petition and only oral arguments were made by learned counsel for the Revenue.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anurag Kalavatiya urged that learned Tribunal, with respects, has erred in not appreciating that after the amendment of Section 36 (1)(vii) of the Act, which was amended by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, w.e.f. 01.04.1989, mere writing off as irrecoverable of bad debts in the Books of Accounts of the assessee for the previous year was enough to allow such deduction from the profit and gains of the business under Section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act, since the word prior to amendment any debt, or part thereof, which is established to have become a bad debt in toe previous year" were substituted by the words "any bad debt or part thereof, which is written off as irrecoverable amounts of the assessee for the previous year" w.e.f., 01.04.1989; and consequently, for the assessment year 1999 - 2000 involved in the present case, such a deduction deserved to be allowed in AY 1999 - 2000 since in the account books relating to previous year such a write off was admittedly made in pursuance of Board of Directors Resolution dated 01.07.1999 in respect of aforesaid amount of bad advances and bad debts claimed by the assessee as deduction. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Tribunal had grossly erred in the first instance in rejecting the said deduction under Section 36 (1) (vii) on the basis of alleged failure of assessee to establish the nexus in the bad advances and profits shown in that period. He further urged this was a mistake apparent on the face of record and, therefore, Section 254(2) of the Act clearly permitted a rectification of such a mistake by the learned Tribunal and the Tribunal again erred in rejecting said misc. application by the impugned order Annex 1 dated 27.04.2010. He, therefore, submitted that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order Annex - 1 dated 27.04.2010 deserves to be quashed.

8. Further elaborating the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the Assessing Authority was not justified in rejecting the said claim of bad advances and bad debts on the ground that the said advances were partly made to concerns of one Rajendra Porwal Group against whom upon search operation carried out under Section 132 of the Act, the said assessee purportedly admitted before the revenue authorities that he was merely a name lender and gave accommodation entries in various names in his Books of Accounts. Learned counsel for the assessee urged that even if one goes by assessing authority's premise, though he denied that such a course was permissible in law, the assessee's case in the present, was absolutely reverse and the assessee had not taken any advances from any such alleged name lender of the said Rajendra Porwal Group but on the contrary had made business advances for purchase of marble and partly from such concerns, as the assessee was an exporter of marble, Since, during the contemporary period, the goods purportedly supplied by the supplier of the said group were of inferior quality, the assessee naturally could not accept such goods for export outside the India; and at the same time since the said debtors failed to refund the business advances made by the assessee, during the said period after waiting for about ten years, the assessee had written off the said advances as having turned bad and irrecoverable and, therefore, claimed deduction of the same in AY 1999 - 2000 in the present year. He, therefore, submitted that the premise of the Assessing Authority as well as learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on appeal filed by the Revenue was absolutely wrong for disallowing the said deduction and such a mistake being apparent on the face of record was a rectifiable error under Section 254 (2) of the Act; and the learned Tribunal was not justified in rejecting such application under Section 254 (2) of the Act.

9. On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that firstly the present writ petition is not even maintainable, since the assessee has alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 260A of the Act before this Court on substantial question of law arising in the matter. Learned counsel for the Revenue further submitted that it is upon a legal debate only it is possible to contend that there is any mistake in the original order of ITAT deciding the appeal of the assessee and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the face of record; and secondly it would not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 254 (2) of the Act, which permits (sic) edification of the mistake of fact apparent on the face of record. Such mistake of law, if at all, it can be said to be one, which he contends otherwise, cannot be rectified under Section 254 (2) of the Act. He also brought to the notice of the Court that against the order of learned ITAT deciding the main appeal on 30.05.2008, the assessee has already preferred an appeal under Section 260-A of the Act before this Court, namely, DB IT Appeal No.99/2010 Madhav Marbles & Granites v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur & Anr. He, therefore, urged that if the assessee is aggrieved by the order passed on the misc. application vide order Annex-1 dated 27.04.2010 also, the assessee can file an appeal under Section 260A of The Act against the said order and in view of such availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner - assessee, the present writ petition cannot be maintained. He also relied upon para 36 and 37 of the judgment rendered by coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Apex Methchem (P) Ltd. v. income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors. reported in, (2009) 318 ITR 48 : (2009) 224 CTR (Raj.) 488,

10. I have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the bar and judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee.

11. 'The last contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue may be dealt with first. The contention that appeal would have lied before this Court under Section 260A of the Act against the order passed under Section 254 (2) of the Act, by which the misc. application for rectification was rejected by the Tribunal, is not correct in law. The said order does not decide the rights of the parties finally at the hand:, of the ITAI, and it is only for substantial questions of law arising out of the any order of the Tribunal under Section 254 (1) of the Act that an appeal on substantial question of law, could be filed before the Division Bench of the High Court. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Apex Methchem (P) Ltd. (supra) has held that where final order under Section 254 (1) of the Tribunal is recalled and matter is directed to be decided afresh by the learned ITAT, it cannot be said to be an order appealable under Section 260A of the Act; and therefore, a writ petition against such a recall order of learned ITAT would be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court.

12. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Chem Amit v. Assistant Commissioner of Income reported in, (2005) 272 ITR 397 (Bom) : (2005) 194 CTR (Bom) 141 also similarly held that orders of ITAT refusing rectification under Section 254 of the Act are not appelable under Section 260A of the Act. The Bombay High Court held that expression "appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Tribunal" obviously is referable to such orders passed under Section 254 (1) of the Act. Thus, an order passed by the Tribunal on application for rectification under Section 254 (2) of the Act, rejecting rectification application cannot be said to be order passed in appeal by the Tribunal within the meaning of Section 260A of the Act. The expression employed in Section 260A of the Act provides for appeal to the High Court is materially different from the expression used in Section 256 that empowers the assessee and the Revenue to require the Tribunal to refer to High Court any question of law. In the given case, where as a conseouence of an order passed on the rectification application under Section 254 (2) of the Act, amendment in the order passed in appeal under Section 254(1) takes place, such amended order in appeal as a consequence of the order passed in the rectification application, however, shall be amenable to appeal under Section 260 A of the Act

13. Similar view was expressed by the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court also in the case of Visvas Promotoers (P) Ltd. v. income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr. reported in, (2009) 30 DTR (Mad) 65.

14. No contrary legal position is available on this issue.Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected.

15. Now corning to the merits of the allowability of deduction as bad advances/bad debts under Section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act, after its amendment w.e.f. 01.04.1989, the position of law seems to have been settled by the Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in, (2010) 323 ITR 397 : (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 14, wherein the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for the Bench held as under:

"4 This position in low is well-settled. After 1st April, 1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. However, in the present case, the AO has not examined whether the debt has; in fact, been written off in accounts of the assessee When bad debt occurs, the bad debt account is debited and the customer's account is credited, thus (sic) the account of the customer. In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from sundry debtors As suited above. the AO has not examined whether, in fact, the bad debt or part there is written off in the accounts o; the assessee this exercise has not been under taken by the AO. Hence, the matter is remitted to the AO for de (sic) consideration of the above - mentioned aspect only and that too only to the extent of write off."

16. This legal position settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the amendment in law w.e.f. 01.04.1989, admittedly, applicable to assessment year 1999 - 2000 involved in the present case, appears to have escaped the attention of the learned ITAT while passing the original appellate order on 30.05.2008 and again in the impugned order Annex - 1 dated 27.04.2010 under Section 254(2) of the Act even though CIT (Appeals) had dealt with the same.

17. The requirement on the part of the assessee to establish that debts in question had really turned bad is no longer there after 01.04.1989 and it is left to the business prudence of the assessee to claim such deduction by merely writing off such advances or debts as bad debts in the Books of Accounts and debiting the same in the P&L account of me assessee Otherwise, any advance would have been shown on the assets s

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ide of the Balance Sheet under the heading of 'Debtors' or 'Loan & Advances' under the heading Current Assets. So long as the outstanding debt is shown on the Assets side of the Balance Sheet, there is no question of claiming the same as deduction from profit and gains of the business computed under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, It is only when such a debt or advance turns bad or irrecoverable, in the opinion the assessee, as per amendment in law after 01.04.1989, a simple book keeping entry to write off the same is enough to entitle the assessee to claim such a deduction. It is not in dispute from the side of the Revenue that such a write off entry was made in the present case by the assessee in its Books of Accounts In case even after such a writing off entry is made, if assessee recovers back any part of such bad debts, it will naturally be credited again in his books and will be taxed in the year of its receipt on recovery. Therefore, going into the requirement of the assessee not establishing the nexus of the advances with his business and computation of profit in the relevant year is of no consequence and position of law as obtaining prior to 01.04.1989 has simply changed after 01.04.1989 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision after the amendment in law in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra), now governs the field. 18. In the face of this legal position, the learned Tribunal apparently, fell into an error in not rectifying the said mistake apparent on the face of record, which is nothing more than a mistake of fact and even if it is construed to be a mistake of law, it is apparent mistake of law, which would also fall within the scope of rectifiable mistake under Section 254 (2) of the Act The Tribunal having failed to rectify the said error, the assessee was left with no other alternative remedy but to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court as no appeal would have lied under Section 260A of the Act against such an order rejecting the application under Section 254 (2) of the Act. 19. Therefore the present writ petition is found to be worthy of acceptance and the same is accordingly allowed and setting aside the impugned order of learned ITAT dated 27.04.2010 (Annex - 1) under Section 254 (2) of the Act, the matter is remanded back to learned Tribunal for passing fresh orders under Section 254 (2) of the Act on the misc. application of the assessee, considering the legal position, as narrated above, in accordance with law within a period of six months from today No costs. Writ Petition Allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

07-05-2020 State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai Versus M/s. PRP Exports, M/s. PRP Granites through its Power Agent/Partner, P. Sureshkumar Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-12-2019 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Granites, Rep. by its Managing partner Nakka Chandra Shekar, Warangal Versus M/s Kapil Chits (Kakatiya) Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Warangal District & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
14-11-2019 M/s. P.M. Granites Exports Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director M. Babanna Versus T. Manoharan High Court of Karnataka
20-09-2019 M/s. Amman Granites, Rep. by its Managing Partner, M. Ramasamy Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, (Customs Policy Section), Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2019 Sharad Madhav Kulkarni & Others Versus Midaas Construction Company P. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-09-2019 Harshavardhan Madhav Chitale Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-08-2019 M/s. A & J Granites, Kottayam, Represented by Its Managing Partner P.T. Andrews Versus The Station House Officer, Karukachal Police Station, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
02-07-2019 Dnyanoba Madhav Kadam Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-07-2019 Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Another Versus Axis Bank Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
26-04-2019 Vasant Madhav Versus Pramod & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
20-03-2019 M/s. Soma Hyderabad City Centre Private Limited, Rep.by its Director, P. Madhav Rao Versus Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (formerly APSRTC Limited), rep.by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-02-2019 Malabar Granites, Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M.K. Joseph Versus The Secretary , Koppam Grama Panchayat, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2019 Malabar Granites, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M.K. Joseph Versus The Secretary, Koppam Grama Panchayat & Others High Court of Kerala
23-01-2019 Chandrakant Madhav Mane & Others Versus Surendra Tukaram Mane & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
07-01-2019 M/s. G.K. Granites, Oorakkad Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Tripunithura, Plakkat Building, Market Junction, Tripunithura P.O, Ernakulam Dist., Cochin & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-01-2019 Madhav Hari Joshi Versus Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another Supreme Court of India
17-12-2018 M/s. G.K. Granites Limited, Kureekkal, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary To Government, Department of Taxes, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
22-11-2018 M/s. TMT. Granites (Pvt) Ltd. Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Director, Tom George Versus The Commissioner, State GST Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
12-11-2018 Commercial Tax Officer, Idukki & Others Versus M/s. Mar Basil Granites & Metals Chaturangapara, Idukki Represented by its Managing Partner, K.C. George & Others High Court of Kerala
29-10-2018 Madhav Atmaram Sahakari & Others Versus Sumitra Govind Panshikar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
26-10-2018 Axis Bank Limited Versus Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-10-2018 Madhav Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
24-09-2018 M/s. KK Rocks & Granites India P. Versus The Dcit, Cen Circle, Tvm Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin
07-08-2018 Dr. Madhav Vishwanath Dawalbhakta (Decd) through LRs. Dr. Nitin M. Dawalbhakta & Others Versus M/s. Bendale Brothers High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-08-2018 Dalwinder Singh Versus Punjab Marbles at Village Kaind, Through its Proprietor, Harpal Singh Cheema & Others Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
16-07-2018 Sunanda Versus Madhav In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-07-2018 Shanthakoti Enterprises Quarry Owner & Exporters of Block Granites Dealer Versus State of Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-06-2018 M/s. Maria Granites, Represented by Its Managing Partner M. John Jacob Versus Thidanadu Grama Panchayat, Represented by Its Secretary, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
21-06-2018 Koottikkal Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary & Another Versus Vazhathara Granites And Aggregates Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director, V.C. Joseph High Court of Kerala
11-06-2018 Mour Marbles Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Motilal Laxmichand Salecha HUF, Proprietor of M/s.Mala Investments through its Karta Motilal Laxmichand Salecha & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-06-2018 M/s. Radha Madhav Engineering Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, V.T. Bhaskar Rao Versus M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., Rep. by its Deputy General Manager (Projects), Visakhapatnam & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
11-06-2018 M/s. Obli Granites, Rep. by its Managing Director, O. Ulaganathan Versus The Presiding Officer & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-06-2018 Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Law) Versus M/s. Radha Madhav Engineering Enterprises & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
08-06-2018 M/s. Ozone Granites [P] Ltd. Perumbavoor, Represented by Its Managing Director P.M. Asharaf Versus The Intelligence Officer, Squad No.V Commercial Taxes Mattanachery At Perumbavoor & Others High Court of Kerala
04-06-2018 M. Ajantha Proprietrix, M/.. Sivamurugan Granites, Thiruvananthapuram Versus Nagaroor Grama Panchayat, Represented By The Secretary & Another High Court of Kerala
22-05-2018 A.R. Madhav Rao & Others Versus State of Haryana & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
15-05-2018 M/s. Kairali Granites, Represented by Its Proprietor, V.R Narayanan Embran Versus The Asst. State Tax Officer, State GST Department, Palakkad & Another High Court of Kerala
15-05-2018 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Represented by the Executive Director, Guwahati & Others Versus Moni Madhav Dutta, Proprietor M/s. Rajlakshmi Gas Service, Assam High Court of Gauhati
11-04-2018 Marbles Centre International Pvt. Ltd. Versus R. Mananathan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-04-2018 M/s. Crystal Granites Limited, Ernakulam District, Represented by The Managing Director, George Antony & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Department of Mining & Others High Court of Kerala
28-03-2018 M/s. Talak Homes & Estates, Through its partners:- Madhav Talak & Others Versus The Village Panchayat of Curtorim, Through its Secretary In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
14-03-2018 M/s. Tab India Granites Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Company, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-03-2018 Valakkavu Granites [P] Ltd. Vattappara, Represented by The Managing Director, T. Jenny John Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat & Others High Court of Kerala
01-03-2018 M/s. Ultra Tile Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus Ganesh Tiles & Granites, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-02-2018 Nanded Madhav Sayaji Redas (Convict No. C-8294) Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Deputy Inspector General (Prison), Central Division, Aurangabad & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
01-02-2018 M/s. Shanmugapriya Granites, Rep by its Proprietor, P.K. Shankar Versus The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-01-2018 Sam Marbles & Granites, (Rep. by its Proprietor C. Chintamani) & Another Versus The District Collector, Thiruvallur District at Thiruvallur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-12-2017 Mahadeo Shripad Deo (Decd) through LRs Laxmibai Madhav Deo & Others Versus Purushottam Shripad Deo (Decd.) through LRs Shalini Prabhakar Vatgikar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-12-2017 Crystal Granites Ltd., Ernakulam District, Represented by its Managing Director, George Antony Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Government Prosecutor & Another High Court of Kerala
13-11-2017 Tamin Granites Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai I Commissionerate Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-10-2017 Danial Madhav Bhalerao & Others Versus In the matter of the Conference of Churches of Chriest in Western India PTR No.179 (ANR) & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
31-10-2017 N.S. Arunkumar, M/s. Aradhana Granites, Palakkad District Versus The Convener & General Manager, Single Window Clearance Board (District Board), Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
10-10-2017 Sumesh Sahani Versus Madhav Singh Dangi High Court of Madhya Pradesh
04-10-2017 M/s. P.M. Granites, rep. by its Managing Partner A. Prabhu, Madurai Versus The District Collector, Dindigul & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-10-2017 Ashok Kumar Versus Proprietor, Chandra Marbles, Mannur.P.O Mattannur, Kannur Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
12-09-2017 M/s. Gem Granites, Represented by its Partner, S.R. Asaithambi Versus The District Collector, Madurai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-08-2017 Dnyaneshwer Madhav Malve Versus The Divisional Commissioner & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
31-07-2017 Global Granites and Others V/S The Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank Ltd. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ernakulam
11-07-2017 Obli Granites V/S CCE, Salem Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
27-06-2017 Madhav Versus The State of Maharashtra, through Assistant Police Inspector & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
20-06-2017 Kamachi Granites V/S CCE, Jaipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
02-05-2017 Madhav Atmaram Sahakari Versus Aselmo Furtado & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-04-2017 Agarwal Marbles & Industries Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E., Jodhpur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
11-04-2017 M/s. Sathya Granites, Dharmapuri Versus Chennai Port Trust, Rep. By its Chairman, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-03-2017 George Antony, Managing Partner M/s. G.K. Granites Versus The Geologist, District Office Department of Mining & Geology & Others High Court of Kerala
16-03-2017 Gem Granites rep. by its Partner Asai Thambi Versus Indian Overseas Bank, rep. by its Chief Manager, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2017 Alphs Granites Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director V. Sivakumar, Erode District & Others Versus M. Balachandar High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2017 Exotic Granites Exports Versus State of Telangana, represented by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce (MII) Department & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
19-12-2016 Pynadath Granites Pvt. Ltd Kuttichira P.O., Thrissur District Versus K.S. Joy & Others High Court of Kerala
02-12-2016 M/s. Sun Granites Exports Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund High Court of Orissa
02-12-2016 M/s. P.M. Granites, Rep by its Managing Partner A. Prabhu, Madurai District Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St., George, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-12-2016 Madhav Vithoba Ghodke (Died) Thr Lrs. Tarabai & Others Versus The Regional Officer & Another Supreme Court of India
17-11-2016 Karur Vysya Bank Versus Pullugujju Venu Madhav & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-09-2016 S. Madhav Versus State of Karnataka, Through Its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
09-09-2016 M/s. KMB Marbles & Granites India Private Ltd., & Others Versus The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-09-2016 Radha Madhav Sewa Trust Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-09-2016 Madhav & Another Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
31-08-2016 Madhav & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-08-2016 M/S. K.K Rocks & Granites India (P)Ltd., Versus S. Latha & Others High Court of Kerala
10-08-2016 Heera Granites Private Limited, Edward Road, Bengaluru & Another Versus Bank of Baroda, A Nationalised Bank, Vadodara & Another High Court of Karnataka
05-08-2016 Amma Granites & Tiles Represented by its Managing Partner Versus The District Labour Officer Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
16-06-2016 M/s. Madhav Structural Engineers Limited Versus The Vice Chairman And Managing Director, M/s. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-04-2016 M/s. Jeyam Marbles, Rep. by its Partner-L. Indirani Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Palayamcottai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-04-2016 The State of Maharashtra Versus Madhav Vitthal Bansode In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-04-2016 Mour Marbles Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Bank of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-02-2016 Shatrughna Madhav Meshram Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-01-2016 Mahadev @ Madhav Shablo Solienkar @ Gaude (since deceased through his legal heirs) & Others Versus Pandu Saju Solienkar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
06-01-2016 Madhucon Granites Ltd. Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary (Mines) & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
02-12-2015 Madhav Goenka & Another Versus Allahabad Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-12-2015 Madhav Goenka & Another Versus Allahabad Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-11-2015 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sunder Marbles National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-11-2015 Shree Ganga Marbles Versus Sardar Charan Singh & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2015 Ramesh Bansal Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Madhav Alloys Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Punjab and Haryana
21-08-2015 M/s. Jayamurugan Granite Exports represented by its Managing Partner P.K. Ravichandran Versus M/s. SQNY Granites, Represented by its Managing Partner P. Karvannan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2015 Jay Madhav Jha Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2015 Madhav Chettri Versus The State of Sikkim through the Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok & Others High Court of Sikkim
21-07-2015 Madhav Chettri Versus The State of Sikkim through the Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok & Others High Court of Sikkim
08-07-2015 M/s. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. Versus Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle 'C', Udaipur High Court of Rajasthan
23-06-2015 The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Versus M/s. Gem Granites & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2015 Madhu @ Madhav Nivruti Pawar Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box