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



Microvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union of India


Company & Directors' Information:- M S C TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64201DL2002PLC115040

Company & Directors' Information:- R S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007DL1998PTC093644

Company & Directors' Information:- C L C TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2000PTC105957

Company & Directors' Information:- I Q TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2000PLC034058

Company & Directors' Information:- IN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2010PTC210298

Company & Directors' Information:- S D M TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22219KA2013PTC070117

Company & Directors' Information:- M & M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1990PTC056999

Company & Directors' Information:- S L S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00367KA1988PTC009651

Company & Directors' Information:- A V K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2002PTC113742

Company & Directors' Information:- C V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52311CH2013PTC034790

Company & Directors' Information:- R G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL2000PTC106267

Company & Directors' Information:- L A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2010PTC209195

Company & Directors' Information:- N R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900GJ2000PTC038010

Company & Directors' Information:- H R TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52603MH2003PTC138635

Company & Directors' Information:- C S A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300TN1996PTC037105

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1996PTC104023

Company & Directors' Information:- S B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200AP2015PTC097640

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND I TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA1997PTC022565

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26900MH1999PTC118353

Company & Directors' Information:- V V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300HR2008PTC037950

Company & Directors' Information:- S W TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U74140DL1970PTC005326

Company & Directors' Information:- B A TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2012PLC143775

Company & Directors' Information:- J TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TZ2000PLC009315

Company & Directors' Information:- J N TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC050546

Company & Directors' Information:- J V D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200MH2005PTC157334

Company & Directors' Information:- J K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC108155

Company & Directors' Information:- I E M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2008PTC187513

Company & Directors' Information:- D. A. TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC173738

Company & Directors' Information:- K M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2006PTC150457

Company & Directors' Information:- D. L. TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC175475

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33112UP2001PTC026185

Company & Directors' Information:- R P J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300UP1994PTC016135

Company & Directors' Information:- S J R S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2008PTC185244

Company & Directors' Information:- E M TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC141257

Company & Directors' Information:- D W TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50400HR2010PTC041610

Company & Directors' Information:- V INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TN2008PTC069066

Company & Directors' Information:- R K H TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106586

Company & Directors' Information:- M C A TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U73100MH2003PTC143446

Company & Directors' Information:- A 2 D TECHNOLOGIES (I) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120MH2010PTC208798

Company & Directors' Information:- V M B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TZ2009PTC015638

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y 5 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300UP2010PTC039514

Company & Directors' Information:- V & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2013PTC199124

Company & Directors' Information:- V J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC163641

Company & Directors' Information:- E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106075

Company & Directors' Information:- L B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2000PTC124946

Company & Directors' Information:- K-TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KL2006PTC019422

Company & Directors' Information:- J S R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PB2011PTC035189

Company & Directors' Information:- R V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2007PTC053614

Company & Directors' Information:- V T S TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29309TN1996PLC036728

Company & Directors' Information:- C A G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52335PB2009PTC032939

Company & Directors' Information:- V N TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TN2006PTC061056

Company & Directors' Information:- H & S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PY2009PTC002365

Company & Directors' Information:- K S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200PB2001PTC024628

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PB2011PTC035133

Company & Directors' Information:- V M S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392TN2004PTC054456

Company & Directors' Information:- MICROVISION TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31110MH2005PTC156635

Company & Directors' Information:- B H TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74200MH2007PTC175126

Company & Directors' Information:- AT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PN2007PTC130827

Company & Directors' Information:- P E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PN2010PTC137065

Company & Directors' Information:- M & B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TN2010PTC074938

Company & Directors' Information:- M & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2010PTC071594

Company & Directors' Information:- A A S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74200TG2005PTC046996

Company & Directors' Information:- J K M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TN2008PTC069232

Company & Directors' Information:- N R P TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TG2009PTC064078

Company & Directors' Information:- O S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900CH2013PTC034358

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2010PTC205207

Company & Directors' Information:- M & A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2014PTC269962

Company & Directors' Information:- A N D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KA2012PTC066768

Company & Directors' Information:- A-1 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31900GJ2012PTC068883

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND 8 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392KL2003PTC016720

Company & Directors' Information:- V R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64202CH2000PTC023433

Company & Directors' Information:- R K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900CH2000PTC023550

Company & Directors' Information:- F C TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2007PTC159296

Company & Directors' Information:- S R J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC176517

Company & Directors' Information:- G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29299GJ2001PTC039300

    Commercial Notice of Motion (L) Nos. 2043 of 2019, 1826 of 2018 in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 855 of 2018

    Decided On, 15 May 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.C. GUPTE

    For the Applicant: Rohaan Cama i/b. Sapana Rachure, Advocates. For the Respondent: T.J. Pandian, Advocate.



Judgment Text


1. This notice of motion (Commercial Notice of Motion (Lodging) No.2043 of 2019) seeks transfer of the captioned commercial arbitration petition along with Commercial Notice of Motion No.1826 of 2018 to the District Court at Nashik. The application for transfer, made by the original petitioner, is under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”).

2. The Applicant, who is a supplier within the meaning of The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (“MSME Act”), had contracts awarded by the Respondent (through Central Railways) for electrification of integrated security system - video surveillance system proposed to be implemented by the Central Railways at certain places. We are concerned here with two contracts, both of which were in pursuance of tenders invited by the Respondent where the Applicant was the winning bidder. Disputes arose between the parties in connection with these contracts, which were referred to conciliation under Section 18(2) of the MSME Act. Upon failure of conciliation, the Applicant applied to the Facilitation Council to act under Section 18(3) of the MSME Act to commence arbitral proceedings. Pending consideration of that application, the Applicant moved a petition under Section 9 of the Act before the District Court at Nashik, seeking interim reliefs pending arbitration. The Applicant thereafter moved an application under Section 11 of the Act before this court seeking appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes and differences. The Respondent objected to the application on the ground that the mandate of clauses 63 and 64 of the General Conditions of Contract, which inter alia provided for pre-arbitration steps, was not complied with by the Applicant. The Respondent also objected to the jurisdiction of this court for deciding the application under Section 11 on the ground of the prior pending application under Section 9 before the District Court at Nashik. By its order dated 16 December 2016, this court allowed the Section 11 application and appointed a sole arbitrator. The Applicant thereafter withdrew its petition under Section 9 of the Act from the District Court at Nashik with liberty to apply for interim reliefs before the arbitral tribunal. The arbitration reference thereafter proceeded before the sole arbitrator, who, by his award dated 15 January 2018, decided it. The award has been the subject matter of challenge under Section 34 of the Act in Commercial Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.855 of 2018 herein. There has been a delay in filing of the arbitration petition. The companion Notice of Motion (Commercial Notice of Motion No.1826 of 2018) has been filed for condonation of that delay. During the pendency of that motion, the present motion (Commercial Notice of Motion (Lodging) No.2043 of 2019) has been taken out, as noted above, for transfer of proceedings from this court to the District Court at Nashik.

3. The basis of this transfer application made under Section 42 of the Act is prior to filing of the petition under Section 9 before the District Court at Nashik. Section 42 of the Act mandates that where, with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this part (i.e. Part I) has been made in a court, it is that court alone (and no other court) which has jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings; and any challenge to an award rendered in such proceedings lies only before that court. It is submitted that the Applicant herein having filed a petition under Section 9 before the District Court at Nashik, the jurisdiction for entertaining a challenge to the award made in pursuance of the arbitration agreement lies before the District Court, and accordingly, the proceedings be transferred to that court.

4. The application is resisted by the Respondent on the ground that the Section 9 petition, though made earlier before the District Court, was simply withdrawn by the Applicant and therefore it cannot be said to have been made in that court so as to attract the mandate of Section 42. Alternatively, it is submitted that the District Court at Nashik was not a court of competent jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 9 and accordingly, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the present challenge to the award.

5. Section 42 of the Act is in the following terms :

“42. Jurisdiction.—Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this Part has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court.”

There is no doubt that application made under Section 9 of the Act comes within Part I and has the effect of restricting jurisdiction under Section 42. The question to be considered here is what is meant by making of an application to a court under this part (i.e. Part I). This question has two aspects: (a) If an application is made in a court, but withdrawn or not pressed, would it still qualify as a prior application made in that court so as to restrict all future jurisdiction to that court; and (b) what is meant by “court” here – whether it is only a court of competent jurisdiction or any court?

6. The answer to the second question, i.e. (b), is obvious. The expression ‘court’ used in Section 42 must take within its sweep only that court which is defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. Under Section 2(1) (e),’ Court’ means the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district (including the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction), having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a suit. It is only when a prior application under any provision of Part I of the Act has been made to such ‘Court’ that Section 42 would have a play. What needs to be considered in our case, whilst applying this law, is whether the District Court at Nashik could be said to be a ‘court’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, and that is dealt with later in this order.

7. The first question, on the other hand, admits of a serious controversy. A division bench of our court, in Vachaspati Sharma vs. India Cements–Capital and Finance Ltd. (MANU/MH/1607/2013), has held that a proceeding filed under Section 9 of the Act, if not pressed, would not restrict the future jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings or all subsequent applications arising out of that arbitration agreement to the Section 9 court. It is, however, submitted by Mr.Cama, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, that the decision in Vachaspati Sharma should be considered per incuriam, since the Supreme Court judgment in Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Pvt. Ltd. vs. AMCI (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 17 SCC 796), interpreting similar language appearing in Section 36 of the Act, was not brought to the notice of the division bench which decided it. Alternatively, learned Counsel submits that the decision has been impliedly overruled in a subsequent Supreme Court judgment in State of West Bengal vs. Associated Contractors (2015) 1 SCC 32), which makes it clear that the language in Section 42 merely requires an application to be made to a competent court and does not contemplate its adjudication or make any exception in the event of its subsequent withdrawal. Further alternatively, learned counsel submits that the decision in Vachaspati Sharma is a precedent sub silentio without the point of law having been analyzed or the crucial words of the statute interpreted or any authority cited. Learned Counsel also submits that having regard to the amendments made to the law by the amendment of 2015, particularly, the statutory bar introduced in Section 9(3) in considering interim reliefs under Section 9 after constitution of an arbitral tribunal, the decision of Vachaspati Sharma (supra) cannot be said to be good law. These arguments are all quite compelling. Considering, however, that on the point of competence of the District Court, I have come to a decision against the applicant, as I shall presently discuss, I would rather leave these questions, which involve much larger issues, open, to be decided later in a suitable matter. I am also conscious of the fact that any such decision may, subject to hearing parties, possibly involve a reference to a Full Bench.

8. Coming now to the issue of competence of the District Court as a ‘Court’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, let me at the outset outline the controversy. The Applicant approached the District Court at Nashik presumably on the footing that the Facilitation Council to whom an application was made by it for reference to arbitration under Section 18 of the MSME Act was in Nashik, and it needed interim reliefs pending such reference. The Court at Nashik obviously did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of arbitration in the sense in which that court would have had jurisdiction if the subject matter had been the subject matter of a suit. There is a restrictive jurisdiction clause in the agreement designating the place of arbitration as Mumbai. Besides, no part of the cause of action could have been said to have accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the Nashik Court. That was indeed the basis on which its competence as “Court” was challenged by the Respondent. In response, it was submitted by the Applicant that the present arbitration was not under the arbitration clause contained in the General Conditions of Contract, which specified the place of arbitration; it was under Section 18 of the MSME Act and thus, the Nashik Court was the court of competent jurisdiction for entertaining an application under Section 9 of the Act. Besides, and in the alternative, it is submitted that the place of arbitration mentioned in Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract referred to the venue of arbitration and not its juridical seat. That is how battle-lines are drawn on this issue.

9. It is not possible to hold that the place of arbitration mentioned in clause 64 of GCC was meant to be a ‘venue’ and not a ‘seat of arbitration’. That would be against the plain reading of Clause 64. It is also not in dispute that if the arbitral seat was in Mumbai, the Nashik Court would have had no jurisdiction to entertain any application arising out of the arbitration agreement before the parties. The real question is whether the arbitration could be said to be under the arbitration agreement between the parties or under Section 18(3) of the MSME Act. If the arbitration was under the arbitration agreement and not under Section 18(3), the fact that pending its application for a reference under Section 18(3) of the Facilitation Council, the Applicant had applied for interim reliefs under Section 9 before the Nashik Court, would have no significance from the standpoint of Section 42 of the Act.

10. It is not in dispute that the conciliation proceeding before the Facilitation Council under Section 18(2) had come to an end without any settlement. So also, it is an admitted position that the reference was made by this court under Section 11(5) of the Act and not by the Facilitation Council under Section 18(3) of the MEME Act. It is clear from the order of this court appointing the arbitrator that the appointment was under Section 11(6) of the Act. Such appointment is by definition on account of failure of appointment under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties. This Court specifically noted in the appointment order that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties in terms of Clauses 63 and 64 of the General Conditions of the Contract. The Court also noted that a request was made by the Applicant to the General Manager of Central Railway for appointment of an arbitrator, but there was no response to it. This Court, in the premises, went ahead with the appointment under Section 11(6) of the Act. This appointment could not be said to be under Section 18(3) of the MSME Act. Mr.Cama, learned Counsel for the Applicant, relies on references in the appointment order to conciliation before the Facilitation Council under Section 18(2), its termination and request for reference made to the Council by the Applicant. These are matters of historical recitation of the facts of the case. Merely because of such recitation, it cannot be said that the court was making a reference under Section 18(3) of the MSME Act. Under Section 18(3) of the MSME Act, it is the Facilitation Council which has to either take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration. The provisions of the Act (i.e. the 1996 Act) apply when the dispute is so taken up by the Council or referred by it to the institution or centre for arbitration. Taking up of such dispute or referring to an institution or centre for arbitration is a statutory duty of the Council; if it fails to perform it, surely the Court may, in an appropriate application, require it to perform it. But that would be by directing the Council to take up the dispute itself or refer it for arbitration. Section 18(3) of the MSME Act cannot be treated as an arbitration agreement for the Chief Justice or his designate to act upon under Section 11(6) of the Act upon failure of the Council to take up the dispute or refer it to arbitration.

11. This Court (at its Nagpur Bench) in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. The Micro, Small Enterprise Facilitation Council (2010 SCC OnLine Bom 2208) has held that merely because Section 18 of the MSME Act provides for a forum for arbitration, an independent arbitration agreement between the parties would not cease to have effect. Mr.Cama submits that a challenge to the decision in Steel Authority of India’s has been pending before the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel submits that in the meantime, Allahabad High Court in Paper and Board Converters vs. U.P. State Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Kanpur (2014 (5) AWC 4844) has held that the MSME Act and, in particular, Section 18 thereof, confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Facilitation Council to first conciliate and later adjudicate the disputes or refer them to arbitration; it could not refer the parties to the sole arbitrator designated by the opponent under Section 8 of the Act upon being approached under Section 18 for arbitration. Learned Counsel also cites the case of Principal Chief Engineer vs. Manibhai & Brothers (MANU/GJ/1164/2016) decided by Gujarat High Court, which followed the view of Allahabad High Court in Paper & Board Converters’ case and differed from the view of our court in Steel Authority of India and this Gujarat decision was held to be justified. Learned counsel submits that the decision in Steel Authority of India (supra), thus, does not hold good. It is not possible to say that the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

view of our Court in Steel Authority of India has been dissented from or overruled, impliedly or otherwise, by the Supreme Court in Paper & Board Converters’ case. The decision holds good, at least so far the validity of an arbitration agreement in the face of the jurisdiction of the Council under Section 18 is concerned, and I am respectfully bound by it. It is one thing to say that notwithstanding anything contained in an arbitration agreement, the Facilitation Council may still have jurisdiction to take up a dispute for arbitration or refer it to an institution or a centre for arbitration, and quite another that an agreement for arbitration shall continue to be valid even in the face of the Council’s powers under Section 18 of the MSME Act. The Paper & Board Converters’ case is concerned with the former proposition and we in the present case are, as also our court in the case of Steel Authority of India was, with the latter. 12. Accordingly, the District Court at Nashik not having any jurisdiction in the matter and therefore, not being a ‘court’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, the application originally made to it by the Applicant herein under Section 9 of the Act does not have the effect of restricting future jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings in the matter to that Court, and the proceedings of the present petition and companion motion cannot be transferred to it. 13. There is, accordingly, no merit in Commercial Notice of Motion (Lodging) No.2043 of 2019 and the same is dismissed. The petition along with its other companion motion (Commercial Notice of Motion No.1826 of 2018) to come up for hearing in due course.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

26-08-2020 Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. & Another Versus Unwired Planet International Ltd. & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
25-08-2020 Evergrwoing Investments & Consultants Private Limited Versus Tomorrowland Technologies Exports Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
20-08-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Sankhya Technologies Pvt Ltd., Chennai. High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-07-2020 M/s. Luminous Power Technologies (P) Ltd. & Another Versus Kanwar Sain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-07-2020 M/s. Sai Srinivasa Properties & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represent by its Director N. Vivekananda Reddy Versus Krishnappa & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-06-2020 Uber Technologies Inc. Versus Heller Supreme Court of Canada
18-06-2020 M/s. CSK Technologies, Hydrabad (Telangana) Versus South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
05-06-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited Versus NCS Computech Private Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 M/s. Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd., (Formerly known as Visteon Powertrain Control Systems India Private Limited) Keelakaranai Village, Malrosapuram Post, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu District V/S The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle - I (3), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
27-02-2020 Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 SKF Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bangalore & Another National Company Law Tribunal Bengaluru
03-02-2020 Lakshmi Rauschenbach, Rep. by Power of Attorney Anand Sasidharan Versus Valuesource Technologies (P) Ltd, Rep. by its Director Christian Lippens & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Sarine Technologies Ltd. Through Authorised Signatory Prachi Bhardwaj Versus Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation Through Partner Dhaval Dahyabhai Diyora High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
31-01-2020 In Phase Power Technologies Private Limited V/S ABB India Limited Competition Commission of India
09-01-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
09-01-2020 M/s. Grant Thornton India LLP., New Delhi Versus 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Formerly Known as Financial Technologies (India) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Supreme Court of India
16-12-2019 M/s. Taranga Technologies, Andhra Pradesh Versus M/s. Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-12-2019 Sterlite Technologies Limited Rep by Chief Manager K. Sundar & Another Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep by Managing Director, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-11-2019 Rajdeep Energies Pvt.Ltd., Represented by its Director Versus Res Q Technologies Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director Magesh High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-11-2019 Smartchem Technologies Limited & Another Versus The Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-09-2019 M/s. Contentra Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Nikhil Pal High Court of Delhi
30-08-2019 Siemens Enterprise Communications Ptv Ltd Now Known As Progility Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-08-2019 Ani Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dinesh D. Shelar High Court of Delhi
07-08-2019 Associate High Pressure Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Union Bank of India Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
23-07-2019 M/s. N.L. Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam South, Represented by C.V. Varghese, Director, Irinjalakuda Versus Commissioner of Customs, Cochin High Court of Kerala
17-07-2019 S/s Bright Technologies Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-05-2019 Arjun Technologies (India) Ltd Versus Karur K.C.P. Packagings Ltd National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
25-04-2019 Exelan Networking Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Premdoss Samson, Adyar & Others Versus M/s. Cadensworth India Limited, Merged with M/s. Redington India Ltd., Rep. by K. Shanmugam, Senior Manager Accounts, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-04-2019 M/s. Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Directors & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, By the Inspector of Police, Mumbai & Another High Court of Karnataka
28-03-2019 Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Joint Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-03-2019 NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shivamogga Smart City Limited A Public Limited & Another High Court of Karnataka
05-03-2019 Income Tax Officer Versus Smartchem Technologies Ltd. Supreme Court of India
27-02-2019 Veisa Technologies Versus Assistant, Commissioner of Income Tax & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2019 M/s. DVB Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST & Excise, Siliguri Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Regional Bench Kolkata
21-01-2019 P. Murali Versus M/s. Airmedia Technologies Chennai Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Nirmala Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2019 B. Shekar & Another Versus Stanpower Technologies Hyderabad, Rep. by its Partner Timothy Prakash & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-12-2018 Endurance Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
16-11-2018 K.M. Projects & Technologies (Pvt) Ltd., Rep.,by its authorized signatory A. Suresh Kumar, Chennai Versus M/s. Bhanu Constructions Co.Ltd., (A1) Rep.,by its Managing Director B.V. Rao & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2018 M/s. FCI Technologies Services Limited, Cochin Versus THE Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
06-11-2018 Samir Agrawal A-206 Versus ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Others Competition Commission of India
02-11-2018 Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited, Chennai & Others Versus Netsweeper Inc, A Company having its registered office at Ontario, Canada, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, N. Krishnan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-10-2018 Swaranjeet Singh Versus Melco Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-10-2018 Vsoft Technologies Private Versus Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad
15-10-2018 Income Tax Office, Ward-1(4) Versus Covidh Technologies Limited Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad
12-10-2018 HCL Technologies Ltd, ELCOT, Madurai Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Deputy Inspector of Labour,III Circle, Madurai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-09-2018 M/s. Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory, P. Kailasam & Another Versus M/s.R.G. Network @ M/s.Raghavendra Cable Vision, Represented by N.M. Devaraj High Court of Karnataka
20-09-2018 Advanced Creative Technologies Limited Versus D4 Cash Investors Limited Court of Appeal of New Zealand
12-09-2018 Meru Consultants & Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Director V. Subramanian, Chennai Versus The Commissioner, Chennai City Municipal Corporation, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2018 Rajnish Kohli Versus HCL Technologies Ltd. High Court of Delhi
04-09-2018 The Acit, Corp Circle-291) Versus M/s. Prudent Technologies P. Ltd Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin
24-08-2018 Bizdata Technologies Pvt. Ltd Versus Ito Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
23-08-2018 M/s. KHEC Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Authorized Representative Paraman, Chennai Versus R.S. Gowrishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2018 M/s. Bebo Technologies Pvt. Ltd Versus Dcit, Mohali Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh
16-08-2018 Atcom Technologies Ltd. Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
14-08-2018 Simbus Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru Versus Vector E-Commerce Private Limited, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
08-08-2018 M/s. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd. Versus Macquarie Bank Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
06-08-2018 M/s. Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Archana Verma High Court of Delhi
01-08-2018 Transvahan Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, S.R. Venkatesan & Another Versus Sepson India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Executive Director/ Chief Executive Officer, Ananthraj Hardar Nabhiraj & Others High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2018 KLA Construction Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Chadha Sugar & Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
30-07-2018 Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation through its partner & Others Versus Sarine Technologies Ltd. Supreme Court of India
30-07-2018 Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Versus C.C. Ahmedabad Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
17-07-2018 Tiebeam Technologies India Private Limited, (formerly Solix Systems Private Limited), Represented by its Director Prmelatha Gundavelli Versus The State of Telangana, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
17-07-2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore & Another Versus M/s. Symbol Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
16-07-2018 M/s. Intelsys Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-07-2018 M/s. Binsys Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus High Court at Calcutta & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-07-2018 Alkraft Thermo Technologies Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
03-07-2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru & Another Versus M/s. Akamai Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2018 Infoplus Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director, Sakunthala Devi Versus Pondicherry University represented by its Registrar, Puducherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-07-2018 M/s. Enable Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shankar Krishna Murthy High Court of Delhi
21-06-2018 Ducon Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
01-06-2018 M/s. Celex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Through Director/authorized Signatory Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
29-05-2018 Axiscades Aerospace & Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Axis Aerospace & Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
21-05-2018 In Re: Akamai Technologies Inc Authority For Advance Rulings Income Tax New Delhi
09-05-2018 M/s. Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus GST & CCE, Chennai North Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
09-05-2018 Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd V/S GST & CCE, Chennai North Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
07-05-2018 ATCOM Technologies Limited Versus Y.A. Chunawala & Co. & Others Supreme Court of India
07-05-2018 Babin Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kinfra Techno Industrial Park, Malappuram Versus Karthika, Choorikovval, Kodakkad P.O., Kasaragodu Dist. & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-05-2018 Cummins Technologies India Ltd V/S CCE & ST, Meerut-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
03-05-2018 Savita Oil Technologies Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
03-05-2018 M/s. Avalon Technologies (P) Ltd., Rep by its Authorised signatory P. Sylvester Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (C&R) High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-04-2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III Versus HCL Technologies Ltd. Supreme Court of India
23-04-2018 Covidh Technologies Limited (formerly ?Aptus Industries Limited?) Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
06-04-2018 Shango Technologies Private Limited V/S Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-03-2018 Pragati Vidyaniketan High School Rep. by its Correspodnent Madhusudan Versus Mind Shaper Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
14-03-2018 Vayam Technologies Ltd. Versus Hewlett Packard Finacial Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
13-03-2018 Balwinder Singh Versus The Managing Director, INTEX Technologies (India) Ltd. & Another Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
08-03-2018 Vayam Technologies Limited Versus Hewlett-Packard Financial Services (India) Private Limited High Court of Delhi
26-02-2018 KLA Construction Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus CKG Realty Pvt. Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
23-02-2018 In the matter of: Sonik Technologies Private Limited, Bikaner Versus Registrar of Companies, Jaipur National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
23-02-2018 Shilpi Cables Technologies Ltd V/S C.C.E.-Alwar Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
16-02-2018 Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Versus M/s. Sciformix Technologies Private Ltd. Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
30-01-2018 Raheja Developers Limited Versus Proto Developers & Technologies Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
19-01-2018 HCL Technologies Ltd V/S CC & CE & ST, Noida Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
16-01-2018 XS Infosol Pvt. Ltd. Versus GLS Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
12-01-2018 Real Image Media Technologies P. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
11-01-2018 Madras Port Trust Rajaji Salai, Chennai Rep. by its Chief Engineer Versus S&S Enviro Technologies Limited Ambattur Industrial Estate Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras