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



M/s. Aditya Birla Money Limited (formerly known as M/s.Apollo Sindhoori Capital Investments Limited), Chennai v/s V. Kalyani & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA BIRLA CAPITAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L67120GJ2007PLC058890

Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA BIRLA CAPITAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120GJ2007PLC058890

Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L01132WB1919PLC003334

Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA BIRLA MONEY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65993GJ1995PLC064810

Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2012PLC231460

Company & Directors' Information:- KALYANI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909AS1998PTC005602

Company & Directors' Information:- E INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65100PY2011PTC002552

Company & Directors' Information:- M & L INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993TN1982PTC009322

Company & Directors' Information:- CAPITAL LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1956PLC001592

Company & Directors' Information:- APOLLO INVESTMENTS LTD [Active] CIN = L65993WB1983PLC035758

Company & Directors' Information:- ADITYA AND COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107RJ2004PTC019073

Company & Directors' Information:- APOLLO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24290DL2012PTC237964

Company & Directors' Information:- C. I. INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101MP2007PTC019874

Company & Directors' Information:- AND INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65923DL1981PTC012382

Company & Directors' Information:- J INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TN1979PTC007776

Company & Directors' Information:- A P INVESTMENTS PVT LTD [Dormant under section 455] CIN = U65910GJ1981PTC004116

    OP No. 643 of 2011

    Decided On, 03 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

    For the Petitioner: Krishna Srinivasan for M/s. S. Ramasubramanian & Associates, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan, SC, G. Sivashankaran, Advocate, R2 to R4, Arbitrator.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the award dated 06.11.2010.)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, challenging the Award dated 06.11.2010, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dismissing the claim of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.85,78,494.34 made against the first respondent.

2. The petitioner is a registered stock broker with SEBI and also a member of National Stock Exchange India Limited and Bombay Stock Exchange Limited in both equity and derivative segments.

3. The first respondent got herself enrolled as a constituent of the petitioner on 02.04.2001 and was allotted the client code No.1245. The first respondent was carrying on trading activities in both equity and derivative segments with National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. The first respondent was carrying the trading activities from 03.04.2001 to 02.06.2009.

4. According to the petitioner, due to an operational error on 27.05.2009, one bill entry (NSE F&O debit bill bearing reference No:200902000466856) for an amount of Rs.42,89,247.17 was misstated in the first respondent's trading account bearing No.1245 on 26.02.2009. As a result of the aforesaid operational error an excess payout of Rs.85,78,494.34 was wrongly credited to the first respondent's Bank of India account bearing No.802410110001944 maintained by the first respondent at Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai on 02.06.2009. This was detected by the petitioner only during the internal control process on 27.11.2009. Subsequently, an investigation was carried out by the petitioner which revealed that the operational error due to the unauthorized software being installed in the petitioner's systems. It was ascertained that due to this unauthorized software which let to the error, the first respondent's bill entry was misstated which resulted in an excess payout of Rs.85,78,494.34 to the first respondent. As a result, the respondent was unjustly enriched.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner had restated the first respondent's trading account bearing No.1245 with the actual accounting entry which states that as on date, an unpaid debit balance of Rs.85,78,494.34 is pending in the first respondent's trading account. The statement of accounts as on 12.03.2009, reflecting the actual transactions have been acknowledged by the first respondent and the account statements as on 31.03.2009 and 30.06.2009 pertaining to the first respondent's aforesaid trading account were also sent to the first respondent.

6. The petitioner by his letter dated 05.01.2010, requested the first respondent for the aforesaid unpaid debit balance of Rs.85,78,494.34. The first respondent failed to reply to the aforesaid letter dated 05.01.2010, nor did she make the payment of Rs.85,78,494.34. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 06.04.2010, through their Counsel calling upon the first respondent to pay the unpaid debit balance of Rs.85,78,494.34 together with interest. Subsequently, on 24.05.2010, the first respondent had issued a detailed reply disputing her liability to pay the debit balance of Rs.85,78,494.34 to the petitioner.

7. In view of the dispute, the petitioner referred the dispute to Arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration clause. In accordance with the Arbitration clause, the National Stock Exchange of India Limited by its letter No.NSE/CRO/ARBN/10-116138-X dated 16th August 2010, appointed the second, third and fourth respondents as the Arbitrators to decide the dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent on merits. The Arbitral Tribunal acted upon the reference and commenced the Arbitration after giving notice to the petitioner as well as the first respondent. The claim statement was filed by the petitioner seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.85,78,494.34 together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 2nd June 2009 from the first respondent.

8. A preliminary objection was raised by the first respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal that the claim of the petitioner is not an arbitral dispute since the claim is not a trading dispute but is based on the alleged mistake of entry in the first respondent's trading account maintained by the petitioner. According to the first respondent, the claim arising out of an operational error in the books of accounts on 26th February 2009, is not arising out of the trading account maintained by the first respondent with the National Stock Exchange. Hence, according to the first respondent, the claim is not an arbitral dispute as per the Arbitration clause contained under the agreement.

9. The Arbitral Tribunal after hearing both the parties to the dispute allowed the preliminary objection raised by the first respondent and held that the claim made by the petitioner on account of alleged operational error resulting in wrongful credit entry in favour of the first respondent goes beyond the scope of the Arbitration as it pertains to interference with the trading account of the first respondent.

10. In view of the said finding, the Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the claim of Rs.85,78,494.34 made by the petitioner against the first respondent. Since the preliminary objection raised by the first respondent was allowed, the Arbitral Tribunal has observed in the impugned Award that other arguments and counter arguments relating to limitation, correctness of accounts, etc. have not been considered in detail as the main claim has been treated as beyond the scope of Arbitration.

11. Aggrieved by the Arbitral Award dated 06.11.2010, the petitioner who was the claimant in the Arbitration has filed the instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

12. From the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it is clear that the only issue which will have to be decided by this Court is whether the claim made by the petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal is an arbitral dispute within the scope of the Arbitration clause contained under the agreement between the parties.

13. Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the applicable Arbitration clause which is in accordance with Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of National Stock Exchange. The Arbitration clause reads as follows:

(1) All claims, differences or disputes between the Trading Members inter se and between Trading Members and Constituents arising out of or in relation to dealings, contracts and transactions made subject to the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the Exchange or with reference to anything incidental thereto or in pursuance thereof or relating to their validity, construction, interpretation, fulfilment or the rights, obligations and liabilities of the parties thereto and including any question of whether such dealings, transactions and contracts have been entered into shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of these Byelaws and Regulations. The Exchange shall be entitled to facilitate arbitration for such disputes and parties as mentioned in the provisions of Byelaw 1, including the arbitration reference filed by Trading Member against the directions or order of the Investor Grievance Redressal Panel (IGRP), by adopting such procedures as may be prescribed by it under this Chapter.

14. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Arbitral Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim of the petitioner to be beyond the scope of Arbitration. According to him, the Arbitration clause has made it explicitly clear that all claims, differences or disputes between the trading members and the constituents including any incidental claims can also be referred to Arbitration. The claim made by the petitioner seeking recovery of money from the first respondent on account of an operational error in the trading account is a claim arising out of the member constituent agreement and therefore, is well within the scope of Arbitration as per the Arbitration clause.

15. The learned Counsel submitted that the operational error in the trading account of the first respondent which happened on 27.05.2009 resulting in a wrong credit entry is incidental to the transaction and hence the claim made by the petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal is an arbitral dispute.

16. The learned Counsel then drew the attention of this Court to the corrected statement of accounts of the first respondent maintained with the petitioner for the period from 01.02.2009 to 12.03.2009 and submitted that the said statement of accounts has been duly acknowledged and confirmed by the first respondent. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the first respondent having confirmed the receipt of the corrected statement of accounts cannot take a contrary stand thereafter disputing the payment due to the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, in all the statement of accounts sent to the first respondent, the ID of the first respondent namely ID No.1245 and the name of the first respondent is clearly mentioned and therefore, the claim made by the petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal arises out of the member constituent agreement between the petitioner and the first respondent and therefore, it is an arbitral dispute.

17. Per contra, Mr.Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent would submit that the claim arising out of an operational error is not a trading dispute and hence, it is not an arbitral dispute in accordance with the Arbitration clause. According to him, the Arbitration clause only contemplates reference to disputes relating to trading on National Stock Exchange , whereas the claim of the petitioner does not relate to trading on the National Stock Exchange. The claim plainly and simply relates only to alleged accounting error in the books of accounts of the petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that mere accounting claims will not fall within the scope of the Arbitration clause and therefore, it is not an arbitral dispute. He submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal has rightly concluded that the claim is not an arbitral dispute since it merely pertains to interference with the account of the first respondent with the petitioner.

18. The learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent further, submitted that the corrected statement of accounts dated 25th June 2010 for the period from 01.02.2009 to 24.06.2009, reveals a debit entry of only Rs.42,89,247.17 whereas the claim of the petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal is for a sum of Rs.85,78,494.34. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the claim made by the petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal is not a trading dispute as it does not arise out of any contractual obligation under the agreement between the petitioner and the first respondent.

19. The learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent drew the attention of this Court to the following three judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

(i) (2015) 3 SCC 49 Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority.

(ii) (2015) 5 SCC 739 Swan Gold Mining Limited vs Hindustan Copper Ltd.

(iii) (2015) 14 SCC 21 National Highways Authority of India vs ITD Cementation India Limited

20. Relying upon the decision in the case of Associated Builders cited supra, he would submit that only when the finding of the Arbitral Tribunal is based on no evidence or the Arbitral Tribunal takes into account something irrelevant to the decision which it arrives at, or ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision, this Court can interfere with the Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

21. Relying upon the decision in the case of Swan Gold Mining Limited cited supra, the learned Counsel submits that the Arbitrator's decision is generally considered binding between the parties and therefore, the power of the Court to set aside the Award would be exercised only in cases where the Court finds that the Arbitral Award on the face of it is erroneous and patently illegal and is controversial to the provisions of the Act and it is also a well settled proposition that the Court shall not ordinarily substitute its interpretation for that of the Arbitrator.

22. Relying upon the decision in the case of National Highways Authority of India cited supra, the learned Counsel submits that the Court under Section 34 of the Act cannot interfere when the view taken by the Aribtral Tribunal after considering the material on record and the terms of contract is certainly a possible view.

23. After relying upon the above referred decisions, the learned Counsel submitted that the Award passed by the Arbitrator is a valid Award and there is no patent illegality in the same.

24. As observed earlier, the only point for consideration is whether the claim made by the petitioner is an Arbitral dispute or not. The Arbitration clause has also made it clear that all claims, differences or disputes with reference to anything incidental thereto shall also be referred to Arbitration. The statement of accounts furnished to the first respondent by the petitioner also discloses the client ID Number of the first respondent. The statement of accounts also discloses the name of the first respondent as well as the alleged wrongful entry of Rs.42,89,247.17.

25. As seen from the Arbitration clause, the ambit of reference is very wide, this Court finds force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the Arbitral Tribunal is not an arbitral dispute as it goes beyond the scope of Arbitration clause is certainly perverse, irrational, illogical and patently illegal.

26. This Court is of the considered view that the Arbitral Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the claim made by the petitioner arises out only under the agreement between the parties. The dispute whether the entry made by the petitioner in the account of the first respondent is a correct entry or a wrong entry can be decided only by the Arbitral Tribunal which is indeed an incidental claim arising ou

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t of the agreement entered into between the parties. The scope and ambit of Arbitration clause is very wide which includes any question relating to validity, construction, interpretation, fulfilment or the rights, obligations and liabilities of the parties and the Arbitration clause also makes it very clear that any incidental claim can also be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. 27. This Court is of the considered view that the Arbitral Tribunal has given an erroneous finding by holding the claim of the petitioner goes beyond the scope of Arbitration. The finding of the Arbitrator is certainly perverse and amounts to patent illegality shocking the conscience of this Court. Hence, this Court will have to necessarily interfere with the Award dated 06.11.2010. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the first respondent supports the case of the petitioner and not the first respondent since the petitioner has been able to establish that the finding of the Arbitrator is perverse and amounts to patent illegality. This Court, therefore, holds that the Award of the Arbitrator is perverse and patently illegal and shocking the conscience of this Court. 28. Accordingly, the Award dated 06.11.2010, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of the second, third and fourth respondents as the Arbitrators is set aside and the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is given liberty to initiate fresh Arbitration against the first respondent as per the Arbitration clause contained in the agreement in accordance with law. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-06-2020 Aditya Nath Jha Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
09-06-2020 Rakesh Malhotra Versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Aditya Birla Money Limited, Rep. By its Head – Legal & Compliance, L.R. Murali Krishnan Versus The National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Investors Services Cell, Kotturpuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-05-2020 Sanjay Damodar Kale Versus Kalyani Sanjay Kale & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Kuber Securities Ltd. Versus C.R.B. Capital Markets Ltd. (In Liquidation) & Another High Court of Delhi
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
08-05-2020 Québec inc. Versus Callidus Capital Corp Supreme Court of Canada
04-05-2020 Priyambada Devi Birla & Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
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
26-03-2020 Asman Investments Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
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
06-03-2020 Remedial Resolutions Advisors Private Limited (Formerly known as Stressed Asset Management Advisors and Settlement Company Pvt. Ltd.) & Others Versus Capri UK Investments Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Shri Chand Construction & Apartments Private Limited & Another Versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. High Court of Delhi
03-03-2020 In The Matter of: Achala Gold Agritech Investments Limited & Others Versus M/s. Achala Gold Agritech Investment Limited & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
28-02-2020 Vasant Mishrilal Parakh & Others Versus TATA Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-02-2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – 6 V/S M/s. Eight Roads Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as FIL Capital Advisors India Pvt. Ltd.) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-02-2020 M.D. Joshi (deceased) & Others Versus M/s. Nahar Investments, rep. by its Director, Nahar Mansion High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Madhab ChandMitter Versus Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-02-2020 Economics Transport Organisation Ltd. Versus Mohan Investments & Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
12-02-2020 Ravi Rathi & Another Versus M/s Aditya Construction Company (India) Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its Director, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
06-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
05-02-2020 Lupin Investments Private Limited V/S Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 10(1) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ITAT MUMBAI A BENCH
31-01-2020 The Apollo DRDO Hospitals, Rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad & Others Versus Peddi Venkatesham Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
30-01-2020 Pramod Poddar Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-01-2020 M/s. Sara Brushware Pvt Ltd., by its Managing Director, Kingston D. Kamalesan, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. Amaravathi Finance & Investments, by its Proprietor Radhakrishnan, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 Chedde Mahesh Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Another Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
24-01-2020 Kalyani Saha & Another Versus M/s. Chowdhury Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
23-01-2020 Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Others Versus Sunita Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
23-01-2020 Reflection Investments Versus National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Mumbai SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
22-01-2020 Ugro Capital Ltd. Versus Bangalore Dehydration & Drying Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
20-12-2019 IREP Credit Capital Pvt Ltd. Versus Tapaswi Mercantile Pvt Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-12-2019 Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd., Represented by its Directors, Chennai Versus BSR Superspeciality Hospitals Limited, Represented by its Directors, Chattisgarh High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 Srilakshmi Vallurupalli Versus M/s. Aditya Construction Company (India) Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its Director, Thota Satyanarayana & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
29-11-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Versus Ashok Kumar Kuthiala Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
27-11-2019 Vinod Kumar Garg Versus State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi) Supreme Court of India
26-11-2019 M/s. Hallmark Capital Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Anand Jain, T. Nagar, Chennai Versus The District Collector, Kanchipuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 M/s. Reacon Engineers, Kochi, Represented by Its Managing Partner P. Rajesh Versus Kalyani Interiors, Rkp-5/1175, Ramanattukara, Calicut, Represented by Its Managing Partner & Others High Court of Kerala
19-11-2019 Baidyanath Yadav Versus Aditya Narayan Roy & Others Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 The Management of M/s. Birla Te Versus Chunni Lal High Court of Delhi
07-11-2019 S.V. Mathav Prasad Versus Apollo Surgical Instrument Co., Rep. by its Partners Sudir Batra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-11-2019 The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Gayatri Capital Ltd., Rep. by its Executive Director Finance Sh. K.P. Ravindranath & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-10-2019 Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd. Versus Singularis Holdings Ltd (In Official Liquidation) (A Company Incorporated in the Cayman Islands) United Kingdom Supreme Court
22-10-2019 Aniket SA Investments LLC Versus Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-10-2019 Premier Capital Services Ltd. & Others Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
15-10-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Golla Venkateswaramma Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
26-09-2019 Siya Ram Saran Aditya & Others Versus State of U.P Thru C.B.I., & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-09-2019 B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-09-2019 Gomti Devi Versus National Capital Territory of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
19-09-2019 Sunita Gupta Trade name M/s. Sunita Investments Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
13-09-2019 Srei Capital Markets Ltd. Versus Gridco Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-09-2019 East African (India) Overseas Versus Govt. of National Capital Region of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
30-08-2019 ICP Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. Versus Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
28-08-2019 Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Versus M/s. Arrow Devices Pvt. Ld. Represented By Its Managing Director, Shri Aditya Mittal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-08-2019 M/s. Capital First Limited & Others Versus M/s. Shree Shyam Pulses Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-08-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Konchada Ravi Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2019 V. Balakrishnan & Another Versus Capital First Limited High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-08-2019 Uma Versus M/s. Apollo Sindhoori, Capital Investments Limited, Ali Towers, Rep. by L.R. Murali Krishnan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2019 The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Narcissus Investments Pvt. Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
31-07-2019 Kalyani Versus The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-07-2019 Sidharth Chauhan Versus Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund Through its investment Manger & Lawful attorney, Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-07-2019 M/s. Aditya Auto Products & Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Head-HR Ramesh Pai Versus M/s. Aditya Auto Products (NTTF), Rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
11-07-2019 Creation Investments Equitas Holdings LIC A wholly owned subsidiary of Creation Investments Social Ventures Fund II LP, United States of America Versus Small Industrial Development Bank of India (SIDBI) 7561, Overseas Towers, Anna Salai, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2019 Small Industries Development Bank of India & Another Versus M/s. Aditya Diamonds & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-07-2019 Kaynet Finance Limited Versus Verona Capital Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-07-2019 Pranabesh Chatterjee Versus Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals, Represented by Ex. Officer, Dr. Rupali Basu & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-07-2019 Tulasi Das Goyal Versus M/s. India Cements Capital & Finance Limited, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-07-2019 Sungold Capital Limited & Othres Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
24-06-2019 SRS Investments Bengal Tiger Ltd. & Others Versus Rahul Todi & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-06-2019 V.G. Santhosam & Others Versus V.G.S. Vinodh Raj Partner of M/s. V.G.P. Investments & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-06-2019 Tube Investments of India Ltd., Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2019 Kaynet Capital Ltd., Mumbai Versus BSE Ltd. & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
31-05-2019 Aditya Swarup Pandey Versus Srawasthi Gramin Bank & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
31-05-2019 Beena Rajesh Raika Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-05-2019 Sawarmal Gadodia V/S Tata Capital Financial Services Limited and Others. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2019 Rudy Frugtniet Versus Australian Securities And Investments Commission High Court of Australia
09-05-2019 Birla Corporation Limited Versus Adventz Investments & Holdings Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
09-05-2019 CPR Capital Services Limited Versus National Stock Exchange of India Limited SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
08-05-2019 PSS Security Solutions Through its Sole Proprietor Versus Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
01-05-2019 Kaynet Capital Ltd. Versus BSE Ltd., Mumbai & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
30-04-2019 Hanudev Investments Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director, Shobana Ravi, Chennai Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-04-2019 Ashutosh Bansal Versus Birla Institute of Management & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-04-2019 Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
16-04-2019 A. Pinky Sureka Versus M/s. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation, Through its Manager, Ramanathapuram & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-04-2019 Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd V/S Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-04-2019 Anant Kumar Jha & Another Versus Indraprastha Apollo Hospital National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-04-2019 M/s. Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Limited, Represented by its Manager – Legal Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Government (Public Department) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-04-2019 Shri Ashish Asawa & Another Versus Ms. Kalyani Sarda & Another High Court of Sikkim
27-03-2019 SRS Investments Bengal Tiger Ltd. & Others Versus Rahul Todi & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-03-2019 Max Ventures Investments Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Dynavest India Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Income Tax Officer & Another High Court of Delhi
25-03-2019 Chitra Khanna Versus LT Governor National Capital Territory of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
19-03-2019 Aditya Hospital & Another Versus Baby Vignesh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-03-2019 The Commissioner of Income Tax Cochin Versus Apollo Tyres Ltd., Cochin High Court of Kerala
13-03-2019 Ashok Kumar Tohani & Another Versus M/s. Capital First Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
12-03-2019 M/s. Globe Capital Market Ltd. Versus M/s. HRIM Finance and Securities Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-03-2019 Birla Institute of Technology Versus State of Jharkhand & Others Supreme Court of India
07-03-2019 Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. Versus Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
07-03-2019 Aditya Industries Versus Shivam Associates & Another Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ahmedabad
06-03-2019 M/s. Aditya Construction Company (JV) Versus The State of Maharashtra, Public Works Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
28-02-2019 GLW Group Limited (In Liquidation) Versus Lepionka & Company Investments Limited & Others Court of Appeal of New Zealand
26-02-2019 Sumitra Samantray Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


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