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



M/s. Century Steel Traders, through its Proprietor, Rajiv Shivji Sharma v/s M/s. Polaris Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. Through its Directors - Pushpendra Pramodkumar Mishra & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- S A L STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L29199GJ2003PLC043148

Company & Directors' Information:- POLARIS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300DL2011FTC214351

Company & Directors' Information:- I S G TRADERS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L51909WB1943PLC011567

Company & Directors' Information:- M TO M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U51100GJ2005PTC046435

Company & Directors' Information:- M P S STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310TZ1996PTC006850

Company & Directors' Information:- M M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109TZ1996PTC006849

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909GJ2001PTC040133

Company & Directors' Information:- G. O. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100PB2007PTC031033

Company & Directors' Information:- I P TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2003PTC097400

Company & Directors' Information:- A N TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101DL1994PTC060786

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADERS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1948PLC010149

Company & Directors' Information:- B. S. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1981PTC116873

Company & Directors' Information:- K R TRADERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909AS1987PTC002815

Company & Directors' Information:- J M G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105BR1992PTC004985

Company & Directors' Information:- H L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27107AS1992PTC003726

Company & Directors' Information:- K V M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29141DL1988PTC031248

Company & Directors' Information:- D. H. CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310PB2009PTC033256

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104JH1973PTC000998

Company & Directors' Information:- R. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2009PTC193047

Company & Directors' Information:- C S CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27105PB2000PTC024010

Company & Directors' Information:- M M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MH2001PTC131270

Company & Directors' Information:- D L J P TRADERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1991PTC052047

Company & Directors' Information:- D G TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC064431

Company & Directors' Information:- R. D. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U17200MH2007PTC170419

Company & Directors' Information:- G. D. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL2008PTC177251

Company & Directors' Information:- CASTINGS INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27101WB1996PTC078196

Company & Directors' Information:- R G S TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921CH1992PTC012297

Company & Directors' Information:- B L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1981PTC034021

Company & Directors' Information:- K V TRADERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U17297WB1989PTC047906

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL TRADERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1938PTC009345

Company & Directors' Information:- R K G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109DL2004PTC128852

Company & Directors' Information:- M L STEEL TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2009PTC133629

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJIV AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2013PTC059574

Company & Directors' Information:- V B STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2010PTC211691

Company & Directors' Information:- I B STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28910MH2010PTC211344

Company & Directors' Information:- G S C CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100PB1996PTC017826

Company & Directors' Information:- M L TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01404PB2009PTC033017

Company & Directors' Information:- A R TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01404PB2009PTC033018

Company & Directors' Information:- O. P. TRADERS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51497PB1994PLC014170

Company & Directors' Information:- S A P TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2011PTC042479

Company & Directors' Information:- J S C STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106UP2013PTC061568

Company & Directors' Information:- R P TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109WB1998PTC086732

Company & Directors' Information:- S. M. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2013PTC239811

Company & Directors' Information:- R K P STEEL LTD [Active] CIN = L27109WB1980PLC033206

Company & Directors' Information:- A G CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310PB1997PTC019495

Company & Directors' Information:- C P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2008PTC127447

Company & Directors' Information:- R R TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109UP1991PTC013245

Company & Directors' Information:- A. K. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112WB2010PTC144880

Company & Directors' Information:- D & T TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC063612

Company & Directors' Information:- P R CASTINGS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27320PB1992PTC012673

Company & Directors' Information:- C D STEEL PVT LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U27109WB1981PTC034340

Company & Directors' Information:- T M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U02710TZ1996PTC007498

Company & Directors' Information:- V A TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039480

Company & Directors' Information:- R K M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB2008PTC130202

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJIV CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310HR1988PTC030423

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND R TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909AS2006PTC008176

Company & Directors' Information:- S K TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U17299WB1989PTC046495

Company & Directors' Information:- P M R STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102DL2003PTC122675

Company & Directors' Information:- C T STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB2005PTC106634

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL CASTINGS OF INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U52392MP1981PTC001808

Company & Directors' Information:- P G STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24111AS1998PTC005409

Company & Directors' Information:- S D TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2010PTC034457

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL1987PTC027835

Company & Directors' Information:- R S CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27101HR1984PTC017261

Company & Directors' Information:- C. I. U. CASTINGS PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U27209WB1994PTC064109

Company & Directors' Information:- A G TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1947PTC001282

Company & Directors' Information:- M U TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51900AS2008PTC008853

Company & Directors' Information:- D S CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27200MH1980PTC023599

Company & Directors' Information:- T. P. TRADERS PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U25209WB1995PTC068943

Company & Directors' Information:- N. L. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100UP2012PTC049307

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL CASTINGS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27310WB1956PTC023017

Company & Directors' Information:- P T TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120AS1999PTC005836

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADERS & TRADERS PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1992PTC055444

Company & Directors' Information:- J S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52190CT1978PTC001432

Company & Directors' Information:- S K TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109KL2003PTC016071

Company & Directors' Information:- U M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27209TN1986PTC013670

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND H TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51909KL1998PTC012688

Company & Directors' Information:- L N STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310WB2007PTC118206

Company & Directors' Information:- M & I TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109MP2008PTC020491

Company & Directors' Information:- L. K. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50400HR2011PTC043898

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. W. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910UP2011PTC043976

Company & Directors' Information:- R. N. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2007PTC116588

Company & Directors' Information:- P M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27105MP1982PTC001915

Company & Directors' Information:- M R STEEL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100TG2013PTC088808

Company & Directors' Information:- A V TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909AS2010PTC009934

Company & Directors' Information:- C K STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29150WB1975PTC030259

Company & Directors' Information:- P G TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120UP2011PTC043805

Company & Directors' Information:- R C TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2016PTC085068

Company & Directors' Information:- M K G TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51494DL2008PTC183965

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJIV TRADERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72900GJ1963PTC001205

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL & COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1991PTC053960

Company & Directors' Information:- S R CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105PB1989PTC009964

Company & Directors' Information:- S L TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15109UP1987PTC008981

Company & Directors' Information:- K N TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109DL1984PTC017665

Company & Directors' Information:- N S STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27106PB1980PTC004266

Company & Directors' Information:- S R TRADERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1985PTC039063

Company & Directors' Information:- B P TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28931WB1980PTC032693

Company & Directors' Information:- K A TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060650

Company & Directors' Information:- A M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100DL1993PTC054323

Company & Directors' Information:- M I CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC016451

Company & Directors' Information:- V D M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51392KL2003PTC016586

Company & Directors' Information:- V C TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51496KL2005PTC018548

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND J TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U19129UP1992PTC014356

Company & Directors' Information:- R C STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28112AS1980PTC001811

Company & Directors' Information:- CENTURY TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18202DL1988PTC030395

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND M TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52321TN1988PTC016066

Company & Directors' Information:- A V V S TRADERS PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U51102TN1988PTC016437

Company & Directors' Information:- V M TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U05001UP1990PTC011859

Company & Directors' Information:- A P TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17297UP1994PTC016102

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA B TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U63090GA1982PTC000481

Company & Directors' Information:- P D STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC038426

Company & Directors' Information:- A K STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1961PTC003566

Company & Directors' Information:- H S P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27100MH2013PTC242983

Company & Directors' Information:- A A TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1964PTC004250

Company & Directors' Information:- A V B TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2003PTC138973

Company & Directors' Information:- D H STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109RJ2012PTC039742

Company & Directors' Information:- R K TRADERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U31200MH1976PTC018744

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND P TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52322PN2009PTC133581

Company & Directors' Information:- M M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51500MH1975PTC018056

Company & Directors' Information:- N R TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH2005PTC157670

Company & Directors' Information:- R K TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U23201MH1976PTC018743

Company & Directors' Information:- R A STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2014PTC253625

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2016PTC215988

Company & Directors' Information:- A & T TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900CH2015PTC035530

Company & Directors' Information:- B M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909CH2010PTC032424

Company & Directors' Information:- N. V. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310DL2009PTC186541

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28939DL2012PTC244467

Company & Directors' Information:- U R TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC056950

Company & Directors' Information:- L M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51497DL2014PTC274205

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2014PTC269271

Company & Directors' Information:- M G TRADERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51101KA2012PTC066173

Company & Directors' Information:- V S TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U23109GJ2002PTC040842

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1958PTC001309

Company & Directors' Information:- D & R TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1996PTC081454

Company & Directors' Information:- R S TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24119WB1980PTC033197

Company & Directors' Information:- A. L. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2000PTC105282

Company & Directors' Information:- K S TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909PB1990PTC010753

Company & Directors' Information:- P S TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92490TN1979PTC007957

Company & Directors' Information:- S P TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1985PTC038361

Company & Directors' Information:- S S TRADERS AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65923DL1959PTC003031

Company & Directors' Information:- A K L TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MP1989PTC005014

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADERS LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1951PLC010277

    Criminal Application (APPA) No. 406 of 2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2018

    Decided On, 31 July 2018

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH PITALE

    For the Applicant: M.R. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, M.D. Samel, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. This court had issued notice on this application for grant of leave on 28.11.2017. The respondents entered appearance.

2. Heard counsel for the parties.

3. The applicant has placed on record sufficient material to demonstrate that case is made out for consideration of appeal against the impugned judgment and order on merits. Hence leave to appeal is granted. This application is allowed and the appeal is directed to be registered.

Criminal Appeal No. 479/2018.

This is an appeal against acquittal of the respondents (original accused) for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2016, the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and Special Court, Nagpur (trial Court), while deciding Summary Criminal Case No. 8250/2012, held that the appellant failed to prove that he was the Proprietor and there was also insufficient evidence on record to prove that the cheque in question was indeed signed by the respondents or that the same had been issued in discharge of legal debt or liability. On this basis, the respondents (original accused) have been acquitted.

2. According to the appellant (original complainant) M/s Century Steel Traders was a proprietary concern of which Rajiv Shivji Sharma was the Proprietor. The said proprietary concern was in the business of sale and purchase of steel and supply of M.S. scrap. The respondents were Directors of the respondent Company M/s Polaris Steel Casting Pvt. Ltd. and that they had allegedly contacted the appellant for supply of M.S. scrap and steel. On this basis, on 27.02.2011 the appellant gave a quotation to supply M.S. scrap to the respondents @ Rs.25,500/- per metric tonne. On this basis, the respondents allegedly placed an order of 1000 metric tonnes of M.S. scrap for a total amount of Rs.2,55,00,000/- on 1.3.2011. It was the case of the appellant that thereafter on 25.03.2011, 96 tonnes of M.S. scrap was delivered to the respondents and similarly on 6.4.2011, further 11 tonnes of M.S. scrap was delivered. It was the case of the appellant that the respondents had sent their trucks to the godown of the appellant where the material was loaded.

3. It was the case of the appellant that the respondents were avoiding to make payment for delivery of the said material, but finally they issued a post dated cheque for an amount of Rs.27,33,850/- bearing the date 5.3.2012 in favour of the appellant. On the said cheque being deposited in the Bank, it was dishonoured with the remark 'account is closed'. As a consequence, the appellant sent a notice to the respondents to which there was no response and eventually the appellant was constrained to file complaint before the trial Court.

4. The defence of the respondents was that they did not receive the notice issued by the appellant. They denied the signature on the disputed cheque, claiming that the appellant in connivance with their Manager had obtained the disputed cheque and filled the contents therein and that the cheque had been misused. The respondents examined a handwriting expert to prove that the signatures on the disputed cheque and the alleged purchase order and delivery challans were forged and that no such transaction ever took place between the parties. A specific objection was also taken by the respondents that the appellant was not Proprietor of M/s Century Steel Traders and that, therefore, he had no authority to file the complaint.

5. The appellant relied upon documentary evidence in the form of quotation dated 27.02.2011 (Exh.37), purchase order dated 1.3.2011 (Exh.38), delivery challans dated 25.03.2011 and 6.4.2011 (Exhs. 39 and 40) and disputed cheque dated 5.3.2012 (Exh.41). The appellant entered the witness box in support of his complaint. In the cross-examination, the complainant (appellant) admitted that in Exhs. 37 and 38 i.e. the quotation dated 27.02.2011 and purchase order dated 1.3.2011, he had not signed as the Proprietor but as authorized signatory. It was also admitted by him that he was not the Proprietor of M/s Century Steel Traders and that he had no documents in support of being Proprietor. There were other admissions made in the cross-examination which will be referred to later. The evidence of the appellant was closed.

6. The respondents examined a handwriting expert to show that the signatures on the disputed cheque and the aforesaid other documents were forged. The handwriting expert was cross-examined and he stated that he was not provided with original documents and that he had given opinion on the basis of the photocopies.

7. After the evidence was closed and the complaint was to be decided, the appellant filed an application for placing on record documents from the office of the Inspector under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948, showing that the complainant was indeed the Proprietor of M/s Century Steel Traders (appellant). This was opposed by the respondents and by order dated 22.12.2015, the trial Court rejected permission to the appellant (complainant) to file certificate/document issued by the Inspector under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 58 of 2016 before this Court. By judgment and order dated 20.01.2016, this Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the said order of the trial Court and allowed the appellant to file the said document, granting liberty to both sides to lead such evidence as was necessary, strictly restricted to the said document. Liberty was also reserved in favour of the respondents to make submissions as to the effect of aforesaid admission in cross-examination on the question of whether the complainant was indeed Proprietor of M/s Century Steel Traders.

8. The said judgment and order of this Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the respondents. On 26.02.2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petition filed by the respondents, observing that it would be open for them to file an application before the Magistrate (trial Court) to call for original records so as to test the veracity of the certificate produced by the appellant herein.

9. As a consequence, the certificate issued by the Inspector under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 dated 27.01.2014 was marked as Exh.126. The respondents filed an application (Exh.137) before the trial Court praying for de-exhibiting the said document and the additional affidavit in evidence filed on behalf of the appellant, on the ground that the complainant was not the author of the said document and that original record from the office of the Inspector under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948, was required to be called to test the veracity of the said certificate. In view of the specific liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order dated 26.02.2016, the said application was in terms of the said liberty. Yet, the complainant filed its reply and opposed the said application on the ground that there was no provision for de-exhibiting the document. By order dated 17.03.2016, the aforesaid application filed by the respondent (Exh. 137) was dismissed by the trial Court.

10. Thereafter, the complainant was examined in the light of the said certificate placed on record. In the cross-examination, the complainant stated that he received the aforesaid certificate from the Inspector under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 (Exh.126) on 23.01.2014. It is relevant that the said document was dated 27.01.2014 as it was signed after renewal by the Inspector on the said date. Yet, the complainant claimed that he had received it on 23.01.2014 itself. He further could not state the exact address of the office from where he had received it although the said document had been with him from 23.01.2014. He again conceded that in the documents at Exhs. 37, 38, 39 and 40 pertaining to the transaction between the parties, he had not signed as the Proprietor.

11. The trial Court took into consideration the aforementioned evidence and material on record and by the impugned judgment and order, it found that even the said certificate at Exh.126 was not sufficient to prove that the said complainant Rajiv Shivji Sharma was indeed the Proprietor of the appellant M/s Century Steel Traders. Consequently the complaint was itself found to have been filed without authority. Apart from this, the trial Court found that the evidence of the handwriting expert and his report demonstrate that there was serious doubt about whether the signatures on the disputed cheque and the documents on record were that of the respondents. It was also found that there was lack of evidence placed on record by the appellant to show that delivery of M.S. scrap was indeed made to the respondents. On this basis, the trial Court found that the appellant had failed to prove its case and accordingly the respondents stood acquitted.

12. Mr. M.R. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the findings rendered by the trial Court were unsustainable. It was submitted that on the question of whether the said Rajiv Shivji Sharma was Proprietor of the appellant M/s Century Steel Traders, the trial Court committed a grave error in disbelieving the certificate at Exh.126 and that statements made in cross-examination by the complainant were misinterpreted by the trial Court to hold against the appellant. It was submitted that once the said certificate was exhibited as Exh.126 and objection was not raised on behalf of the respondents at the first available opportunity, they could not be permitted to dispute the same. It was submitted that the document was issued by a public authority and under the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872, no further proof was required to be placed on record by the appellant to prove that said Rajiv Shivji Sharma was indeed the Proprietor. It was further submitted that reliance placed on the report of the handwriting expert and his evidence, was misplaced and that the findings rendered by the trial Court in this regard were perverse. It was further submitted that the trial Court erred in holding that the appellant had failed to prove the transaction between the parties, when there was sufficient material on record to show that presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the appellant. It was submitted that in view of the detailed documentary and oral evidence placed on record, the appellant had indeed proved that the disputed cheque had been issued in discharge of legal debt and yet the trial Court had erroneously acquitted the respondents.

13. Per contra, Mr. M.D.Samel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondents because the complaint filed on behalf of the appellant was itself filed by a person who had no authority, as there was no evidence on record to prove that the said Rajiv Shivji Sharma was indeed Proprietor of the appellant M/s Century Steel Traders. It was submitted that objection to the said document/certificate at Exh.126 was raised immediately on behalf of the respondents. In fact specific application was filed by the respondents for calling the original record from the office of the Inspector under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948, which was opposed by the appellant, despite liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that in these circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant deserved to be rejected. Apart from this, it was pointed out that the evidence of the handwriting expert was sufficient to show that the signatures on the disputed cheque and other documents were forged. The admissions made in cross-examination by the witness of the appellant were sufficient to show that there had been no transaction between the parties and that the entire complaint was based on false assertions. It was submitted that there was sufficient material to show that the defence of the respondents was probable and that since the trial Court had taken a possible view in the matter, the appeal deserved to be dismissed.

14. Heard counsel for the parties. There are two issues that arise in the present appeal. Firstly, whether the said Rajiv Shivji Sharma was entitled to claim that he was a Proprietor of the appellant M/s Century Steel Traders and secondly, whether the appellant had proved the foundational facts regarding the transaction between the parties, supply of M.S. scrap to the respondents and issuance of disputed cheque by the respondents towards payment for such supply. In case such facts stood proved, the presumption would obviously operate in favour of the appellant.

15. In order to decide the first issue, it is necessary to peruse the certificate at Exh.126 and the evidence of the witness for the appellant, who claimed to be the Proprietor i.e. Rajiv Shivji Sharma. The evidence of this witness both prior to and after bringing on record the said document is required to be appreciated to analyse as to whether the finding rendered by the trial Court was justified. The said witness entered the witness box in support of the complaint. In his evidence, he reiterated the grievance raised in the complaint that the disputed cheque was issued by the respondents for payment towards supply of M.S.scrap, for which the purchase order and delivery challans were relied upon. In the cross-examination, prior to the document at Exh.126 coming on record, the said witness had admitted that the word 'Proprietor' was not found beneath his signature in the documents at Exh.37 (quotation dated 27.02.2011) and Exh.38 (purchase order dated 1.3.2011). It was further admitted that he had signed as authorized signatory in the aforesaid document at Exh.38. He further admitted that he was not the Proprietor of the complainant (appellant) and further that he had not filed any document in that regard. He stated that he was looking after the work of the complainant (appellant) since 2007-2008. Thus, the aforesaid admissions made in the cross-examination by the said witness clearly demonstrated that he was not the Proprietor of the complainant (appellant).

16. But, after his application for placing on record aforesaid certificate (Exh.126) was allowed by this Court, the said certificate came on record and according to the appellant it was sufficient to prove that the said Rajiv Shivji Sharma was indeed the Proprietor of the appellant. A perusal of the said document shows that the renewal of the licence under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 was on 23.01.2014 and that the Shop Inspector had signed the said certificate/document on 27.01.2014, showing that the said Rajiv Shivji Sharma was the Proprietor of the appellant. According to the appellant, the said certificate (Exh.126) being a public document, no further proof was required. But, the orders passed by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the context of permission to place the said document on record, become relevant. This Court in its order dated 20.01.2016, while allowing the appellant to place on record the said certificate (Exh.126) had granted liberty to both sides to lead evidence in respect of the said document. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its order dated 26.02.2016, had observed that it was open for the respondents to file an application before the trial Court to call for the original record in order to test the veracity of the said certificate (Exh.126).

17. In this situation, when an application (Exh.137) was filed by the respondents before the trial Court for de-exhibiting of the said certificate (Exh.126) and for calling the original record to test its veracity, the appellant opposed the said application. This conduct on the part of the appellant clearly shows that it had something to hide. In view of the specific liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the application filed by the respondents could not have been opposed by the appellant. Yet, it was opposed and the trial Court by its order dated 17.03.2016 rejected the application of the respondents. In this situation, it clearly does not lie in the mouth of the appellant that the respondents had not objected to the said certificate Exh.126 being taken on record at the first available opportunity. Such objection was raised by them before the trial Court and it had been accepted, but the writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed by this Court, on the condition that the parties were at liberty to lead evidence pertaining to the said document and furthermore the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted liberty to the respondents to apply to the trial Court to call for the original record to test the veracity of the said certificate at Exh.126. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that once the said certificate was exhibited at Exh.126 before the trial Court, the respondents were not entitled to dispute the same or raise any objection to the same, is absolutely baseless and it cannot be accepted. Reliance placed on behalf of the appellant on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia .vs. Subodh Mody- 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 886 is wholly misplaced. The said certificate Exh.126 on its own could, therefore, not become the basis for the said Rajiv Shivji Sharma to claim that he was the Proprietor of the appellant.

18. In this context, the cross-examination of the said witness of the appellant after the certificate at Exh.126 was brought on record, becomes even more significant. During this cross-examination, the said witness stated that he received the certificate Exh.126 on 23.01.2014. He stated that he personally went to the concerned office of the department on 23.01.2014 to collect the said certificate Exh.126. But, he admitted that he did not know the detailed address of the office from where he collected the said document. He also stated that the said certificate Exh.126 was with him from 23.01.2014 when he had collected the same. It is significant that the said certificate Exh.126 shows that the Shop Inspector had signed the same on 27.01.2014. It is, therefore, inexplicable as to how the appellant received the said document on 23.01.2014 itself, when it was signed and issued by the Shop Inspector on 27.01.2014. The said factors brought out in the cross-examination of the witness, read with the certificate Exh.126 dated 27.01.2014, demonstrate that the said certificate is rendered highly suspicious and doubtful. In this backdrop, the opposition on behalf of the appellant in calling for the original record from the office of the Inspector under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948, shows that the said Rajiv Shivji Sharma had no evidence to prove that he was indeed the Proprietor of the appellant. Therefore, the finding rendered by the trial Court in this regard cannot be interfered with. The said Rajiv Shivji Sharma had no authority to file the complaint on behalf of the appellant and on this ground alone the complaint deserved to be rejected.

19. As regards the claim of the appellant that presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in its favour, it was first necessary for the appellant to have proved the foundational facts in support of its complaint. The case of the appellant was that the respondents had expressed their desire to purchase M.S. scrap from it and in that regard quotation dated 27.02.2011 (Exh.37) had been issued. The purchase order dated 1.3.2011 (Exh.38) was allegedly placed for 1000 tonnes of M.S. scrap by the respondents and that by delivery challans dated 25.03.2011 and 6.4.2011 (Exhs. 39 and 40) 96 tonnes and 11 tonnes of M.S. scrap were allegedly delivered by the appellant to the respondents. It was claimed that the disputed cheque dated 5.3.2012 (Exh.41) was issued by the respondents for the supply of the said amount of M.S. scrap. In this regard, the defence of the respondents was that the signatures on all the said documents were forged and that the cheque had been misused. It claimed that there had been no transaction between the parties. In support of the said defence, the respondents had examined a handwriting expert and his report was also brought on record. According to the report of the handwriting expert, the signatures on the said documents were not those of the respondents. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the cross-examination of the handwriting expert had completely demolished the said evidence of the expert.

20. A perusal of the report of the handwriting expert shows that according to him there was difference in signatures. The handwriting expert appeared as a witness and deposed about the manner in which he had come to the said conclusion. In cross-examination, the said witness admitted that he had prepared the report by examining disputed signatures from photocopies and comparative signatures in original. He also admitted that there was possibility of alterations in photocopies of documents and that if the original documents were produced then the report would be 100 %. It is on these admissions made by the said witness that the appellant has emphasized, in order to claim that the report deserved to be disbelieved. But, a perusal of the record shows that the copies of the disputed documents were given to the expert after they were obtained from the original record of the Court. Certified copies were obtained from the original record of the Court and the handwriting expert proceeded on the basis of such material. In this situation, it cannot be said that the trial Court was not justified in relying upon the said report and the evidence of the handwriting expert. The trial Court found that the credibility of the said report and the witness were not shaken in cross-examination. The said finding of the trial Court cannot be said to be wholly erroneous because if copies obtained from the original record of the Court were made available to the expert, a report prepared on the basis of the same could not be said to be spurious. In any case, the expert was not cross-examined on the merits of the opinion given by him. In this situation, reliance could be placed on the report. If that be so, there was material to show that the presumption under the provisions of the said Act was not triggered in the present case.

21. Apart from this, cross-examination of the witness who appeared on behalf of the appellant on the nature of transactions between the parties also becomes important. A perusal of the cross-examination of the said witness shows that he has clearly admitted that the appellant had no transaction prior to 2012 with the respondents. This means that the transaction on the basis of which the complaint was filed, was the first and only transaction between the parties. The said witness further admitted that he had no material to show that the aforesaid amount of M.S. scrap was actually delivered to the respondents, other than the aforesaid two delivery challans (Exhs. 39 and 40 dated 25.03.2011 and 6.4.2011). He could not explain as to why there was no mention of any order number, date of the order and other details in the said delivery challans. He could not explain as to why details pertaining to the trucks like their registration number etc. were not mentioned in the said challans or any document to show that delivery of M.S. scrap totaling 107 tonnes was actually made to the respondents. The said witness also stated that he did not know as to whether the ink on the disputed cheque pertaining to the signature and other contents was different. It was also not explained as to why the disputed cheque was dated 5.3.2012, when the delivery of the said material had been already made to the respondents on 25.03.2011 and 6.4.2011. It was not explained as to why, when there was a provision for penalty for late payment beyond 15 days, it was not imposed on the respondents. The appellant has also failed to explain that if the disputed cheque was issued for supply of total 107 metric tonnes of M.S. scrap at the rate of Rs.25,500/- per metric tonne, why was the amount more than the value of the said amount of material.

22. The aforesaid admissions made in the cross-examination by the witness for the appellant demonstrate that there was insufficient evidence to show that the disputed cheque was indeed issued for supply for material as claimed by the appellant. A serious doubt was created abut such transactions having taken place between the parties. Therefore, there was hardly any evidence on record placed by the appellant to prove foundational facts pertaining to the claims made it. In such a situation, the appellant was not justified in claiming that presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, operated in its favour.

23. The trial Court took into consideration the entire evidence and material on record and found that not only was the appellant unable to prove that the said Rajiv Shivji Sharma was its Proprietor, but it had also failed to prove that the disputed cheque pertained to discharge of legal debt or liability. The entire case of the appellant was rendered suspicious and not believable. The analysis of the evidence and material on record by the trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous and the findings are not perverse. It is certainly a possible view taken by the trial Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record. Not only was the complaint filed by a person who had no authority to file the same, but the signatures on the disputed cheque and other documents appeared to be forged and in any case, there was lack

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of credible evidence to show that there had been transactions between the parties for which the respondents had issued the cheque in discharge of legal debt or liability. 24. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence when two views are possible, the view that is in favour of the accused is to be adopted. The trial Court in the present case has taken a possible view of the matter and there is no reason why the same is required to be reversed. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any justifiable reason for interfering with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 25. The appellant filed Criminal Application Nos. 203 of 2018 and 256 of 2018 under Sections 311 read with 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking permission to place on record documents and for permission to lead further evidence and to call and examine Inspector from the Department of Shops and Establishment. The said applications moved on behalf of the appellant cannot be permitted at this stage. The reliance placed on behalf of the appellant on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Tshering Bhutia .vs. State of Sikkim- (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 402 in this regard, is also misplaced. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that additional evidence at belated stage is permissible in case of failure of justice. But, it is further laid down that such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the Court is satisfied that permitting additional evidence would serve the interest of justice. It is laid down that it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case as to whether such permission was to be granted and further that it should be generally invoked when formal proof for the prosecution is necessary. The said position of law does not favour the appellant in the present case at all. These applications are clearly an after thought and a feeble attempt to support the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. The said applications pertain to an attempt on the part of the appellant to prove that that the said Rajiv Shivji Sharma was indeed the Proprietor of the appellant. This is an attempt to demonstrate that the complaint was filed by an authorised person. The appellant has failed to make out a case for adducing additional evidence at this stage. Even otherwise, this Court has found that on merits the appellant has absolutely no case. Therefore, the present Criminal Application Nos. 203 of 2018 and 256 of 2018 deserve to be dismissed. 26. In the light of the above, the present appeal is found to be without any merit and it is dismissed. Consequently the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondents is confirmed. Criminal Application Nos. 203 of 2018 and 256 of 2018 are also dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-09-2020 Rajiv @ Raju Gupta & Others Versus State (through) Public Prosecutor High Court of Bombay at Goa High Court Building Altinho, Panjim & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
21-08-2020 Indivar Traders Pvt. Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
06-08-2020 Rajiv Bal Versus Harrison Industries, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 M/s. Maa Sarala Multipurpose Cooperative Limited Versus Steel Authority of India & Another High Court of Orissa
23-06-2020 Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Instittue & Research Centre Through Administrator/Secretary & Others Versus Dharam Prakash Garg Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
09-06-2020 Bhupendra Suryawanshi Versus Sai Traders High Court of Madhya Pradesh
09-06-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Versus Steel Authority of India, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-06-2020 Directorate of Enforcement Versus Rajiv Saxena High Court of Delhi
04-06-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Versus State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Another Versus Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-05-2020 M/s. Renaissance Traders, Nagaland Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
29-04-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus State Tradings Corporation Of India Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
09-04-2020 M. Munusamy Versus The Secretary to its Represents The Union Government of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 M/s. Minar Castings Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Hadeed Steels Pvt. Ltd.), Kanjikode, Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Director, A. Mohammed Shafi Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Taxes Department, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
12-03-2020 Confederation of All India Traders, New Delhi Versus Competition Commission of India, New Delhi & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
06-03-2020 Food Corporation of India & Another Versus M/s. V.K. Traders & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-02-2020 World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. & Others Versus Rajiv Negandhi West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-02-2020 The Director General, Railway Protection Force Railway Board, New Delhi & Others Versus Rajiv Kumar Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Ashok Kantilal Gandhi Vendor & Prop. of M/s Gunjan Traders High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus GPT Steel Industries Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
24-02-2020 Maa Tarini Traders, District Raigarh (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-02-2020 Batliboi Renewable Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Batliboi EnXco Pvt. Ltd.,) Represented by Rajiv, Senior Manager (Accounts) Versus M/s. Sri Vinayaga Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor R. Ganesan High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 Rajiv Nagar Residential Welfare Association, Represented by its President, M. Ramaswamy, Thiruvallur Versus The District Collector, Thiruvallur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Rajiv Chahal @ Rajiv Chail Versus State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-02-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, O/o. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Salem Versus M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., M/s. JSW Power Ltd., Pottaneri, Mecheri High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Salem Steel Plant, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Finance & Accounts, K. Sivaguru, Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 M/s. Texcel International Pvt. Ltd., Sengundram Industrial Area (Near Ford India Ltd.,), Chengalpattu Versus M/s. Chennai Steel Tubes, Rep.by one of its Partner, G. Bhavanishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2 Versus M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. (Successor on amalgamation of JSW Ispat Steel Ltd.) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
31-01-2020 Rajiv Mohan Mishra Versus CPIO Jt. Commissioner (OSD) Central Information Commission
30-01-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
29-01-2020 Shahil Traders Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-01-2020 Rajiv Jiwan Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
23-01-2020 M/s. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director & Chairman P. Jose Versus Rajiv Kumar Ishwar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
20-01-2020 Rajiv Kumar Bhagat @ Raja Late Chandrasekhar Bhagat Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-01-2020 M/s. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Versus Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd. High Court of Jharkhand
10-01-2020 A. Balanarasimha Rao Versus A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd., (Government of A.P. Undertaking) Bandlaguda Project, Rangareddy District, Rep. by its General Manager (Projects) Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
10-01-2020 Chakilam Laxmi Narasimha Rao Versus A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd., (Government of A.P. Undertaking) Bandlaguda Project, Rangareddy District, Rep. by its General Manager (Projects) Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
09-01-2020 State of U.P. Versus Rajiv Kumar Sonkar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-01-2020 M/s. Rukminirama Steel Rollings Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus The State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary, Secretariat & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
04-01-2020 RBL Bank Ltd. V/S Priyanka Alloy Castings and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
03-01-2020 Allahabad Bank V/S Shri Balaji Traders and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
01-01-2020 Indian Overseas Bank V/S Sapthagiri Cotton Traders and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-12-2019 V. Krishnamurthy Versus The Airport Authority of India, (Represented by its Chairman), Rajiv Gandhi bahvan, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-12-2019 Selva's Steel Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-12-2019 Centre for Indian Trade Union (CITU), Head Load Workers Unit, Kottayi, Palakkad, Represented by Its Secretary & Others Versus Intercontinental Traders, Kottayi, Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Director & Others High Court of Kerala
11-12-2019 Rajiv S. Gupta Versus Newtech Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
10-12-2019 Shalimar Iron and Steel Private Limited, Ramgarh Cantt. through its Director Rafat Praveen Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
05-12-2019 M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd & Another Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
04-12-2019 M/s. Shriram Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. A.N. Traders Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
04-12-2019 M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, V.S. Prasad Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Project Director, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-12-2019 Electrosteel Steel Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. STP Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-11-2019 Manju Puri Versus Rajiv Singh Hanspal & Others Supreme Court of India
13-11-2019 HI-TEK Traders, Changanacherry, Represented by C.C. Joyichan, Managing Partner Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Changanacherry & Others High Court of Kerala
13-11-2019 Rajiv Gandhi V/S The State, by the Inspector of Police, Gandhi Market Police Station, Tiruchirappalli Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-11-2019 A.S. Impex, Sole Proprietorship of Rutuparna Dole Versus M/s. Shree Durga Traders, Represented by its Partner, Mukesh Mahajan & Others High Court of Karnataka
06-11-2019 B. Basappa & Another Versus J.S.W. Steel Ltd., Bellary High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
04-11-2019 JSW Steel Limited Versus Government of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
31-10-2019 Chitrahar Traders, Represented by its Proprietor, R. Krishnamoorthy, Tirupur Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Assessment Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2019 M/s. Sangeetha Traders Represented by its Partner Santosh Kumar Lath, Alwarpet Versus T.A. Shanmugham, Proprietor, M/s. Sai Packaging Industries, Ambattur, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 Versus NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
24-10-2019 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus Arun Kumar Jagatramka National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
22-10-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited Central Marketing Organization Through Assistant General Manager (Marketing) Regional Office, Maharashtra Versus Lalit Agrawal & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-10-2019 Vanit Gupta & Another Versus Delta Iron & Steel Company P. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-10-2019 Rajiv Kumar Sharma & Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Another Supreme Court of India
16-10-2019 Rajiv Vijayasarathy Rathnam Versus Sudha Seetharam High Court of Karnataka
15-10-2019 Global United Shipping India (P) Ltd., Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR) Mettukuppam Versus Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund), Chennai Customs House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-10-2019 JSW Steel Ltd. Versus Mahender Kumar Khandelwal & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
27-09-2019 P.S. Abhiram Sunil Versus Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science, Represented By Its Registrar, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
17-09-2019 M/s. Rajni Exports & Imports, Rep. By its Partner, Rajiv Naaram & Another Versus The Director General of Foreign Trade Ministry of Commerce & Industries, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-09-2019 Pragatisheel Engineering Shramik Sangh Industrial Estate, Chhattisgarh Versus Simplex Castings Ltd, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-09-2019 Rajiv Kapasi & Another Versus M/s. Unitech Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-09-2019 M/s. S.S. Steel Industry Versus M/s. Shri Guru Hargobind Steels High Court of Delhi
03-09-2019 M/S S.D. Traders Commissioner of Income Tax & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-08-2019 Ramesh Kumar Vishwakarma & Others Versus Steel Authority of India Limited Through Its Managing Director, Bhilai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-08-2019 Shree Daneshwari Traders V/S Sanjay Jain and Others. Supreme Court of India
08-08-2019 Mahavir Babagonda Patil & Others Versus M/s. Tirupati Traders, A Partnership Concern & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-08-2019 Fisan Traders & Another Versus Mollakkanakathu Usman Koya Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
07-08-2019 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus A.M. Traders & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-08-2019 Vettro Traders & Integrated Services, Represented by Its Managing Partner, P.A. Kunjumuhammed Versus The Sub Inspector of Police, Aroor Police Station & Others High Court of Kerala
01-08-2019 M/S Mamta Steel India Pvt. Ltd. Peepur Amethi Throu, Director & Another Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Civil Lines Allahabad High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
31-07-2019 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Exalt Service Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-07-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Rajiv Gupta & Another High Court of Delhi
29-07-2019 M/s. Mangesh Mahalaxmi Traders, Shiribeedu, Rep. by its Proprietor, Ramachandra Kidiyoor Versus The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Udupi & Another High Court of Karnataka
29-07-2019 M/S Vishwaleela Steel Tube Industries & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-07-2019 Combined Traders Versus Commissioner of Trade & Taxes High Court of Delhi
17-07-2019 V. Rajiv Gandhi & Others Versus State represented by The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Karur (Crime No.6 of 2017) & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-07-2019 Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited, Mumbai Versus Abhishek Steel & Power Limited rep. by its Managing Director, Gopal Agarwal, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-07-2019 Rajinder Singh Versus Rajiv Sabharwal High Court of Punjab and Haryana
12-07-2019 M/s. Hasbi Traders, Represented by its Proprietor, Sheik Dawood Versus The Chief Engineer / Distribution, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2019 The Nest & Others Versus Rajiv Kumar Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-07-2019 The Director, Steel Authority of India Limited Versus Ispat Khandan Janta Mazdoor Union Supreme Court of India
05-07-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited & Another Versus Jaggu & Others Supreme Court of India
05-07-2019 Thulja Traders, Rep.by its Power Agent, S.R. Guruprasad Versus M/s. Venkatesh Trading Company, Rep. by its Partner, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-07-2019 Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha Versus Rajiv In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
02-07-2019 Rajiv Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
01-07-2019 M/s. Shakti Traders Versus M.P. State Mining Corporation High Court of Madhya Pradesh
27-06-2019 Aswini Traders Versus The Director of Census Operation, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras