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



M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies (Pvt.) Ltd., Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai, Rep. by Authorised Signatory, P. Sirajudeen v/s Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Chennai


Company & Directors' Information:- ALKRAFT THERMOTECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29129TN1982PTC009474

Company & Directors' Information:- REP CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26921TN2005PTC055138

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15420MH1921PTC000947

Company & Directors' Information:- GST PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104MH2002PTC136410

    C.M.A. Nos. 1933 to 1935 of 2018

    Decided On, 20 August 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

    For the Appellant: M.V. Swaroop, Advocate. For the Respondent: Aparna Nandakumar, Senior Standing Counsel.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 130 of Customs Act, 1962 against the Final Order Nos.41949 to 41951 of 2018 dated 9.7.2018 in Appeal No.E/40311/2018, E/40312/2018 and E/40313/2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.)

Common Judgment:

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.

1. The Assessee is in Appeal before this court aggrieved by the order dated 9.7.2018 passed by the learned CESTAT by which the Appeals filed by the Assessee came to be dismissed and the learned Tribunal held that the Appellant/Assessee was not entitled to Input Tax Credit of Service Tax paid on transportation of excisable goods from its Chennai Unit I to Jamshedpur Unit 2 of the Assessee itself.

2. The learned Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, v. Ultra Tech Cement Limited ((2018) 2 SCC 721). The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions of CESTAT also in the case of Cadbury India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III (2016(42) STR 155) and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. (2017 (52) STR 350 (Tri. Del.)) in para 7 and 8 of its order respectively, but, the Tribunal disallowed the claim of the Assessee, following the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ultra Tech Ltd (supra).

3. The learned counsel Mr.M.V.Swaroop appearing for the Assessee submitted that the definition of 'place of removal' in Rule 2(qa) extracted by the learned Tribunal includes in clause (iii) thereof any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory from where such goods are removed and he further submitted that excisable goods in the present case viz., Radiators were manufactured at the Chennai Unit 1 of the Assessee and they were transported to Jamshedpur Unit 2 where they were fitted with intercooler and thereafter, the Composite Unit of Intercooler and Radiators were sold by the Unit 2 viz., Jamshedpur Unit and since the definition of 'Input Services' defined in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules after its amendment on 1.4.2008 in its clause (iii) included any service used by a manufacture, whether directly or indirectly, or in relation to manufacture of final products and clearance of final goods upto the place of removal, therefore, the Service Tax paid by the Assessee on the transportation of goods viz., Radiators from its Chennai Unit 1 to Unit 2 at Jamshedpur will be covered by the said clause (iii) of the definition and the Assessee was entitled to claim Cenvat credit of such Service Tax paid on the transportation charges incurred for transportation of goods from Unit 1 to Unit 2.

4. He submitted that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement is distinguishable on facts as the controversy involved in the case before the Supreme Court was one pertaining to the transport of goods from the place of removal of Assessee seller to buyer's premises, which is an outward transport service ending at the terminal point of consignment and obviously that could not be included in view of the definition of 'Input Service' after its amendment which substituted the words 'from the place of removal' by 'upto the place of removal'. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the Appeals filed by the Assessee.

5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Standing Counsel Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar appearing for the Respondent/Revenue urged that Clause (iii) of definition in Rule 2(qa) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 defines the words place of removal as a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are transported by the Assessee in the same form and thereafter, without any change of form, if such excisable goods are sold from that depot or premises or the consignment agent, the same would be included within the definition place of removal as defined under Rule 2(qa). She further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ultra Tech Cement Limited (supra) would govern the present case of the Assessee as the present case of the Assessee is also in respect of the period after the amendment on 1.4.2008 with the words upto the place of removal. She further submitted that both the Units of the Assessee in the present case are separately registered with the Excise Department and therefore, the transport charges incurred by the Assessee for transporting the goods in semi-finished condition viz., the Radiators from its Chennai Units to Jamshedpur Unit cannot be included within the definition of place of removal and therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in denying the Cenvat Credit for the Service Tax paid on transport charges for transporting the goods from Chennai to Jamshedpur.

6. We have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the order of the learned Tribunal as well as the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited at the Bar.

7. We are of the clear opinion that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Limited supports the case of the Assessee rather than that of the Revenue. A closer and finer reading of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would clearly reveal that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned only with the controversy of Cenvat Credit on goods transported from the place of removal to the buyers' premises and not the transport of goods from one Unit of the Assessee to another Unit of the same Assessee. In the context of the factual background, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in view of the amended definition of the place of removal wherein the word 'upto' has been substituted for the word 'from' in clause 3 of Rule 2(l) which defines Input Services, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.

8. On the other hand, a careful reading of the definition of place of removal which is quoted below would reveal that in clause (iii) thereof, besides the words "a depot, premises of a consignment agent", as contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue, there are further words in the said clause (iii) and which are "or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory'. These words added to the other two clauses as emphasised by the learned counsel for the Revenue are not without a meaning and redundant. These words, on the other hand, enlarges the definition of place of removal in clause (iii) wherein besides a Depot of the Assessee itself or premises of the consignment agent, any other place or premises including the like one of Unit 2 at Jamshedpur in the case of the Assessee in the present case would be covered, where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory. Though the semi-finished goods (Radiators) were sent from Chennai Unit 1 of the Assessee, the further manufacturing process at Unit 2 at Jamshedpur does not negate it or oust it from the definition of "place of removal" in any manner. On the contrary, the goods sold as excisable goods viz., Intercooler with Radiators in the present case, clearly fall within clause (iii) of Rule 2(qa). We are not persuaded to take an unnecessarily narrow or restricted view of the said definition, as canvassed by the learned counsel for the Revenue.

9. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultra Tech indirectly supports the view which we have taken above, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Cenvat on goods transport agency availed for transport of goods from the place of removal of Assessee to the buyer's premises was not admissible to the respondent and that by necessary implication would mean that Input Services for transport of goods upto the final place of removal of goods by way of sale to the buyers would be so included. The definition of place of removal and para 11 to 13 of the Judgment in Ultra Tech case are quoted below for ready reference:-

""Place of removal" means-

(i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods;

(ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty;

(iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory;

from where such goods are removed."

The relevant portion of the Judgment in the Ultra Tech case is also quoted below:-

"11. As can be seen from the reading of the aforesaid portion of the circular, the issue was examined after keeping in mind judgments of CESTAT in Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and M/s.Ultratech Cement Ltd. Those judgments, obviously, dealt with unamended Rule 2(l) of Rules 2004. The three conditions which were mentioned explaining the 'place of removal' as defined under Section 4 of the Act, there is no quarrel upto this stage. However, the important aspect of the matter is that Cenvat Credit is permissible in respect of 'input service' and the Circular relates to the unamended regime. Therefore, it cannot be applied after amendment in the definition of 'input service' which brought about a total change. Now, the definition of 'place of removal' and the conditions which are to be satisfied have to be in the context of 'upto' the place of removal. It is this amendment which has made the entire difference. That aspect is not dealt with in the said Board's circular, nor it could be.

12. Secondly, if such a circular is made applicable even in respect of post amendment cases, it would be violative of Rule 2(l) of Rules, 2004 and such a situation cannot be countenanced.

13. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to hold that Cenvat Credit on goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods from the place of removal to buyer's premises was not admissible to the respondent. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Order-in-Original dated August 22, 2011 of the Assessing Officer is restored."

10. We further notice that the learned Tribunal, after quoting para 7 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultra Tech not only did not discuss anything about para 11 to 13 of the said Supreme Court decision as quoted above, but also did not give its own findings and reasons as to how the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judge was being applied to the facts of the present case where the transport services were involved from Chennai Unit 1 to Jamshedpur Unit 2 of the Assessee only and not to the place of buyer of Composite Unit of Intercooler with Radiators by the Jamshedpur Unit of the Assessee.

11. The stark distinction of facts of the case before the Tribunal and the facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ultra Tech case should have been noticed by the final fact finding authority viz., the Tribunal before applying the judgment of the Apex Court to

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the facts of the case before it rather mechanically. It is the duty of the final fact finding body to analyse the facts of the case on hand appropriately and only after comparing the facts of the case before the higher Constitutional Courts, it should proceed to apply the ratios of the Judgments from the Constitutional Courts to the case before it. The misapplication of the Judgments without comparing the facts, can result in serious miscarriage of justice and can expose the non-application of mind by the responsible appellate forums like the CESTAT in the present case. 12. Having analysed the facts of the case on hand before us and the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we reiterate that the ratio of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ultra Tech case supports the view which we have taken rather than the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue. 13. Therefore, we allow the Appeals of the Assessee and set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Tribunal and direct the Revenue Department to allow the Cenvat Credit in respect of Service Tax paid by the Assessee on transport of its goods from its Chennai Unit 1 to Jamshedpur Unit 2 in the present case. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

14-09-2020 Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, Rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin Versus The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its President, Kanchipuram Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its Senior Manager(Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 B.S. Yediyurappa Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2020 Shyam Investments, Rep. by its Partner Nina Reddy & Another Versus Masti Health & Beauty Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 Mukund Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-09-2020 Punitha Versus State by Turuvekere Police Turuvekere, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
10-09-2020 G. Chitra Poornima & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by Under Secretary Revenue Department & Others High Court of Karnataka
09-09-2020 R. Bharaneeswaran Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2020 Santosh @ Sada Mahadev Chand Rakodi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
09-09-2020 Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service, Rep. by its Authorized Representative J. Anjananandan Versus The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Collector of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam Versus Janaki High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Sir Venkatramanaswamy Blue Metals, Rep by its Managing Partner, M. Sivanandam & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Karur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai Versus P. Muthian High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Y. Devadas Versus State of Telangana, Rep., by Special Chief Secretary, Education Dept., Government of Telangana & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Alfadul Sobhi & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
04-09-2020 K. Ravi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Labour & Employment, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Saluvadi Sumalatha Versus The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (TREI-RB) rep., by its, Executive Officer (Convenor) & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 K. Ebnezer Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-09-2020 F. Srilekha & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by S.P.P., Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 M. Ravi & Others Versus State by Vishwanathapura P.S., Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 Yedla Babulu & Others Versus State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (J.A & L.A), T.S. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-09-2020 Taba Tagar Versus The State of Arunachal Pradesh Rep. By Its Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh & Others High Court of Gauhati
03-09-2020 Kothapalli Govinda Rajulu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
03-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai. Another Versus S. Manikandan High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 Meharaj @ Meharaj Begum Versus State by K.G. Halli P.S., Rep. by Government Pleader High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 G.C. Kishor Kumar Versus Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 Philip Stephen Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-09-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Arani Versus Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Vazhuvoor Ravi Versus The State of TamilNadu, Rep.by the Chief Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust Established and Administering, Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research, Rep. by Chairman V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore Versus M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 M/s. AAF India Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Jagruti Mursenia Versus M/s. KBR Industries, Represented by its Partner High Court of Karnataka
31-08-2020 M/s. Kaveri Associates, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Rishabchand Bhansali Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(1), Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2020 Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd., Rep.by its Authorized Signatory R. Eswaran Versus The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 Shifa Khairun Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to the Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
28-08-2020 Chandan @ Abcd Chandan Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor, Benglauru High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2020 Ponnayal & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Additional Chief Secretary, Highways & Minor Ports Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 M/s. Anish Orchardes Private Ltd. Rep. by its Director S. Bhavani & Others Versus The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras as Provisional Liquidator of Maxworth Orchards (India) Ltd. Orchards (India) Ltd. Rep. by Administrator K. Alagiriswami & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 K.V. Sayan & Another Versus The State rep. By Inspector of Police, Kotagiri Police Station, The Nilgiris & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 Karnataka Professional Colleges Foundation Rep. by its Secretary R.V. Govinda Rao & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Phatik Sonowal Versus State Of Assam Rep. By The Comm. & Secy. To The Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary), Gauhati & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Mohammed Anees Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Poornachandrakala Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Collegiate Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-08-2020 Praveena @ Itachi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Kamakshipalya Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Pradeep Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 M/s. Web International Cargo Ltd., Rep. by its proprietor Srinivas P. Bhat Versus M/s. Magnum Logistics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Jayaram High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Master Vinay Bharadwaj, Rep. by his Father & Natural Guardian D.R. Shivakumar Versus M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Pradeepa Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 M/s. Leo Activation, Division of Black Pencil Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, Rep. by Its Director Versus The 49th All India Congress of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Kochi, Represented by Its Organizing Committee Chairman, Dr. V.P. Paily High Court of Kerala
26-08-2020 Muhammed Versus State of Kerala Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam Through S.H.O. Varapuzha Police Station, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
25-08-2020 The Deputy General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Coimbatore & Another Versus M/s. Annamalai Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, P. Velusamy, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2020 Usha Ramachandran Versus Canara Bank, Rep by its Branch Manager, Anna Nagar (East) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 B. Sunil Kumar & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Rep. by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
24-08-2020 Sumathi Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2020 R. Pirabala Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-08-2020 Badavath Leela Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration ((Spl.(Law & Order), Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-08-2020 TNCSC Employees Union, Affiliated with Labour Progressive Federation, Rep. by its State President, Chennai Versus Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2020 Indian Overseas Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Rep. by its Chief Manager Versus The District Collector & District Magistrate, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2020 Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, R.A. Puram, rep. by its Superintending Engineer Versus M/s. VDB Projects (P) Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 Josephine Ancilda Versus HDFC Bank Limited, Rep. By its Branch Manager, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 L. Ahmed Abdul Razack Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-08-2020 Ravikumar @ Kariya Versus State by Konanakunte Police, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
19-08-2020 P. Gopalakrishnan Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager, Dindigul Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-08-2020 G. Naganna Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-08-2020 Sri Nandhanam Educational & Social Welfare Trust Vellore District rep. by its Chairman, P.M.N. Mohan Krishnaa Versus The Reserve Bank of India, rep. by its General Manager, Banking Ombudsman, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-08-2020 P.R. Jagannathan Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Transport Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-08-2020 S. Aravind Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2020 T.V. Maniyappan & Another Versus Pattanakkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
14-08-2020 R.M. Manjunath Gowda Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-08-2020 Javed Versus The State of Karnataka (Dandeli Town Police Station), Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
14-08-2020 P.P. Suresh Kumar, Managing Director, Kerala Communications Cable Ltd., Kochi & Another Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
13-08-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. its Secretary School Education Department, Chennai & Others Versus S. Venkatachalam & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-08-2020 D.Gattaiah @ Satish, Kadapa DT. Versus The State of Telangana, rep PP. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-08-2020 Karakapally Pusparaju Versus The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
13-08-2020 Pokala Suresh Kumar Versus Government of Telangana, Revenue Department, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
13-08-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Higher Education, Chennai Versus Syed Ammal Engineering College, Rep. By its Administrative Officer, Ramanathapuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-08-2020 K. Krishnasamy Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-08-2020 Scott Christian College, Rep.by its Correspondent S. Byju Nizeth Paaul Versus The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-08-2020 Krishnamoorthy & Another Versus Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Periyasevalai, Rep. by its Special Officer & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 Khaja Nayeemuddin Versus State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-08-2020 Thripurala Suresh Versus The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-08-2020 Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Velagapudi & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
11-08-2020 M. Raj Sekhar Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Public Health & Municipal Engineering Dept. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-08-2020 Sri Kalakuteers Apartment Flat Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Limited, rep. by its Chief Promoter & Another Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary Cooperation Dept., Secretariat, Hyd. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-08-2020 Lakshmana @ Lakku Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
07-08-2020 Sanjeev Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by S.P.P., Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
07-08-2020 Suresh & Another Versus State Rep.by the Inspector of Police, K.Paramathi Police Station, Karur Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-08-2020 Tamil Nadu Elementary School Teacher's Federation, Rep. by its District Secretary, A. Justin Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Kottayam, Rep. by The Manager Versus O.S. Varghese & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 Habeeb Tayyab Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Poll), Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-08-2020 Vadde Padmamma Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-08-2020 K. Mallikarjuna Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
05-08-2020 Samastha Nair Samajam (SNS), Rep. by Its General Secretary, Kollam Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
05-08-2020 Syed Abu Ali @ Kodi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Hiriyur Town Police Station, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
05-08-2020 M/s. Wan Hai Lines (Singapore) Pte Ltd. IC, Rep. by its Agent M/s. Wan Hai Lines (India) Pvt Ltd., Chennai & Others Versus Tionale Pte Ltd., Rep. by its Power of Attorney Agent, P. Barathiraj & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras