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



M/s. Fair Communication & Consultants & Another v/s Surendra Kerdile


Company & Directors' Information:- A L CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL1992PTC047548

Company & Directors' Information:- K U CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140TG2007PTC096159

Company & Directors' Information:- P K CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U51109WB1982PLC034478

Company & Directors' Information:- E N COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92132DL2005PTC143469

Company & Directors' Information:- V K CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1984PTC017836

Company & Directors' Information:- T C COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2000PTC105354

Company & Directors' Information:- J J CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1979PTC009865

Company & Directors' Information:- J J COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74300WB1997PTC085828

Company & Directors' Information:- M R J CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65100DL2000PTC107845

Company & Directors' Information:- K R CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210MH1976PTC019133

Company & Directors' Information:- B P CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC018637

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND Y CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH2004PTC147878

Company & Directors' Information:- P C B CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93030DL1993PTC053225

Company & Directors' Information:- M S J CONSULTANTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1977PLC008673

Company & Directors' Information:- S L G CONSULTANTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210UP1995PLC017541

Company & Directors' Information:- G D CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U74140WB1992PTC055314

Company & Directors' Information:- A K G CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65910UP1984PTC006840

Company & Directors' Information:- K N CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74300DL2004PTC126935

Company & Directors' Information:- I P S CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC052142

Company & Directors' Information:- A P CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1988PTC044101

Company & Directors' Information:- S S A T CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899HR1999PTC043321

Company & Directors' Information:- L B CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U35110MH2000PTC124245

Company & Directors' Information:- P. K. COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92141DL1984PTC017748

Company & Directors' Information:- K E A CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140AS2000PTC006255

Company & Directors' Information:- B M CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1993PTC057742

Company & Directors' Information:- P G CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1995PTC069687

Company & Directors' Information:- S N D J CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140GJ1994PTC021517

Company & Directors' Information:- A M CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210UR1991PTC013539

Company & Directors' Information:- T I COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109HP2009PTC031079

Company & Directors' Information:- K S T CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140HR2001PTC034658

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC026193

Company & Directors' Information:- M K CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LTD. [Active] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC021810

Company & Directors' Information:- M S CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140KA1978PTC003396

Company & Directors' Information:- T V P CONSULTANTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210TN1989PLC017726

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND C CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KA2001PTC028519

Company & Directors' Information:- V J CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC030550

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND M CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH2006PTC160606

Company & Directors' Information:- K Y CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2007PTC171114

Company & Directors' Information:- S D B CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1996PTC076113

Company & Directors' Information:- T C L CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210UP1995PTC017835

Company & Directors' Information:- H D CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80903UP1998PTC023537

Company & Directors' Information:- R R CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65999DL1998PTC092219

Company & Directors' Information:- S B M COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64201WB2010PTC145582

Company & Directors' Information:- V A CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071305

Company & Directors' Information:- P N COMMUNICATION P. LTD. [Active] CIN = U32204DL2001PTC111327

Company & Directors' Information:- S K D C CONSULTANTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140TZ1998PLC008301

Company & Directors' Information:- A B AND U COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300MH1997PTC107160

Company & Directors' Information:- R C CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1989PTC046608

Company & Directors' Information:- M S V CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U51109WB1992PTC054605

Company & Directors' Information:- S P J CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1981PTC011360

Company & Directors' Information:- K R K CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140HR2003PTC035255

Company & Directors' Information:- M R CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2007PTC119796

Company & Directors' Information:- P I CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2000PTC107611

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND A CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC035057

Company & Directors' Information:- C & C CONSULTANTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93030MH2007PTC167125

Company & Directors' Information:- R J CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH1980PTC022203

Company & Directors' Information:- R CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67190DL1997PTC086857

Company & Directors' Information:- S K M CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74200UP1982PTC005787

Company & Directors' Information:- M R G CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74110UP2011PTC044264

Company & Directors' Information:- C T CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210DL1988PTC032514

Company & Directors' Information:- R V A CONSULTANTS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH1997PTC107541

Company & Directors' Information:- V B CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U74140WB1992PTC054900

Company & Directors' Information:- H J CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1981PTC012441

Company & Directors' Information:- Q S CONSULTANTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC174546

Company & Directors' Information:- M R R CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67190DL1996PTC079845

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND D COMMUNICATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64120GJ1997PLC031879

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND C CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH1989PTC051704

Company & Directors' Information:- M V D CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1997PTC090211

Company & Directors' Information:- I P CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1978PTC031493

Company & Directors' Information:- A B CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210WB1997PTC084875

Company & Directors' Information:- R A H R CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74910MH2003PTC141821

Company & Directors' Information:- G M P CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1979PTC031925

Company & Directors' Information:- A - N - D CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2006PTC150195

Company & Directors' Information:- W W CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH2000PTC127861

Company & Directors' Information:- E & I CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93092DL2006PTC152435

Company & Directors' Information:- F AND C CONSULTANTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93090TN2012PTC086880

Company & Directors' Information:- K R D CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH1978PTC020478

Company & Directors' Information:- P & G COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH2013PTC251505

Company & Directors' Information:- M D M M CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN2004PTC054210

Company & Directors' Information:- S C B CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72200WB1995PTC067968

Company & Directors' Information:- C M CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1980PTC032527

Company & Directors' Information:- G R CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1988PTC043587

Company & Directors' Information:- S. P. A. CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140WB2009PTC137174

Company & Directors' Information:- H W W CONSULTANTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210DL1999PTC098323

Company & Directors' Information:- R H S CONSULTANTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC142869

Company & Directors' Information:- G & F CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2010PTC203680

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND F CONSULTANTS (INDIA ) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210MP1997PTC012428

Company & Directors' Information:- F I E CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH1978PTC020313

Company & Directors' Information:- C & R CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1991PTC051377

Company & Directors' Information:- S L V CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999PN1982PTC026075

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140GJ1980PTC003868

Company & Directors' Information:- A R K CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210CH1988PTC008566

Company & Directors' Information:- G S CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74120MH1982PTC027867

Company & Directors' Information:- C P CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC019083

Company & Directors' Information:- P J COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC105416

Company & Directors' Information:- V M S CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH1978PTC020578

Company & Directors' Information:- R S M CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140TN1997PTC038092

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND B CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH1995PTC093125

Company & Directors' Information:- J C CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999CH2009PTC031573

Company & Directors' Information:- J S P CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059260

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND M CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH1990PTC057688

Company & Directors' Information:- I T E CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140TN2002PTC048786

Company & Directors' Information:- E E A CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC040193

Company & Directors' Information:- E S T CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC044016

Company & Directors' Information:- K T CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC132185

Company & Directors' Information:- M S Y CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2009PTC190657

Company & Directors' Information:- A G C CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140PB1990PTC010053

Company & Directors' Information:- V R K CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC054970

Company & Directors' Information:- V C CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900PB2011PTC034598

Company & Directors' Information:- S N N CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74910PB2001PTC024430

Company & Directors' Information:- 3 C CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140TZ2012PTC018099

Company & Directors' Information:- K S M CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210TN1990PTC019961

Company & Directors' Information:- B & A CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300TN2003PTC051640

Company & Directors' Information:- T & B CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900TN2013PTC091261

Company & Directors' Information:- S S CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120TN1998PTC040751

Company & Directors' Information:- G & C CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140PN2008PTC131894

Company & Directors' Information:- P G K CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900PN2012PTC143791

Company & Directors' Information:- R H G CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC263905

Company & Directors' Information:- P & E CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210MH2004PTC148769

Company & Directors' Information:- A M N CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U93090TG2006PTC051524

Company & Directors' Information:- S. M. S. C. CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67100UR2012PTC000105

Company & Directors' Information:- S G U CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74120TG2015PTC097341

Company & Directors' Information:- P & N CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80902TN2009PTC073655

Company & Directors' Information:- J S N CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210UR2000PTC025640

Company & Directors' Information:- A V P CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN2011PTC082695

Company & Directors' Information:- M K COMMUNICATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U72900HP2006PTC030292

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND S CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140CH2010PTC032638

Company & Directors' Information:- K C CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140CH1986PTC006760

Company & Directors' Information:- R S N CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140CH2010PTC032180

Company & Directors' Information:- H V COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52602DL2009PTC193309

Company & Directors' Information:- J S R CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2011PTC213948

Company & Directors' Information:- M G A CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC016573

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND G CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LTD. [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC018323

Company & Directors' Information:- K V CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC028071

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND M CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032741

Company & Directors' Information:- R S CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Dormant under section 455] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC036540

Company & Directors' Information:- F E M CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC051346

Company & Directors' Information:- I C AND T CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1997PTC088336

Company & Directors' Information:- V R CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2004PTC126322

Company & Directors' Information:- B A P CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC132992

Company & Directors' Information:- P & M CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2007PTC163033

Company & Directors' Information:- C I CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2008PTC181696

Company & Directors' Information:- T A Y CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2010PTC207851

Company & Directors' Information:- D G CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC245155

Company & Directors' Information:- E T H CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2016PTC289152

Company & Directors' Information:- T K CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2011PTC222386

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND A COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92132DL2001PTC110975

Company & Directors' Information:- U. F. CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000DL2009PTC188289

Company & Directors' Information:- S K N CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000DL2010PTC211311

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000DL2012PTC246143

Company & Directors' Information:- R I E CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC179365

Company & Directors' Information:- Q I C CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2004PTC129575

Company & Directors' Information:- T D CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74920DL2002PTC116884

Company & Directors' Information:- B. M. COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64100DL2012PTC244419

Company & Directors' Information:- H. K. COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64100DL2013PTC255831

Company & Directors' Information:- B R COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64203DL2002PTC114477

Company & Directors' Information:- S J COMPANY CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KA2003PTC032080

Company & Directors' Information:- N S N COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64100KA2014PTC073757

Company & Directors' Information:- A T CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140GJ1994PTC021422

Company & Directors' Information:- G P CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1976PTC030700

Company & Directors' Information:- P .T .CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1997PTC083079

Company & Directors' Information:- G S A CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2003PTC123203

Company & Directors' Information:- C B N CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U72200WB1992PTC057119

Company & Directors' Information:- K K V M CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1981PTC012912

Company & Directors' Information:- A R E CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140TZ1999PTC008878

Company & Directors' Information:- B P L CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U01132AS1986PTC002495

Company & Directors' Information:- N G CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC033820

Company & Directors' Information:- C. V. S. CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1984PTC017263

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1997PTC110282

Company & Directors' Information:- M I T CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH1981PTC025488

Company & Directors' Information:- S D CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1980PTC032640

Company & Directors' Information:- R K CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1981PTC012790

Company & Directors' Information:- N A COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC182901

Company & Directors' Information:- G & D COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64200MP2007PTC019633

Company & Directors' Information:- C D CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120HR2008PTC037618

Company & Directors' Information:- CONSULTANTS INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140AS1979PTC001766

Company & Directors' Information:- N M D CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1986PTC026219

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND K CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140GJ1983PTC006414

Company & Directors' Information:- S V CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210TN1987PTC015013

Company & Directors' Information:- P B CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140GJ1986PTC008786

Company & Directors' Information:- S & T CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80301DL1993PTC053173

Company & Directors' Information:- A S CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210DL1988PTC032467

Company & Directors' Information:- SURENDRA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U74900KL1950PTC001099

Company & Directors' Information:- SURENDRA AND CO. LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1949PLC007920

Company & Directors' Information:- M S CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH1974PTC017489

Company & Directors' Information:- A B M CONSULTANTS (INDIA ) PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC007907

Company & Directors' Information:- A J CONSULTANTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC023404

    Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2010

    Decided On, 20 January 2020

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

    For the Appellants: Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate. For the Respondent: Pratibha Jain, Advocate.



Judgment Text


S. Ravindra Bhat. J.

This appeal by Special Leave challenges a decision of the Madhya Pradesh, High Court, by which a suit for recovery of Rs. 80,000/- was decreed in appeal. The impugned judgment set aside the judgment and decree of the XIII Additional District Judge, Indore (hereafter "trial court").

2. The plaintiff (respondent in the present case, referred to hereafter as "Surendra") is the maternal uncle of the defendant-second appellant (hereafter referred to by his name as "Sanjay"). Sanjay is also the sole proprietor of first appellant/defendant (M/s Fair Communication & Consultants). Surendra filed a suit for claiming recovery of Rs. 1,08,000/- alleging that Sanjay and his proprietorship firm owed money lent. Surendra apparently was a resident of Nashik, but had completed his education at Indore. He was an Engineer employed at Nashik and owned some land and a flat (MIG Scheme No. 54, Indore). As Surendra wished to settle eventually in Nashik, he appointed Sanjay who used to reside in Indore as Power of Attorney and executed a deed of General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of Sanjay on 30.09.1989 for that purpose. Sanjay entered into an agreement to sell the property to one Niranjan Singh Nagra ("buyer") on 30.11.1989 and received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money. Surendra alleged that Sanjay called him to Indore on 29.01.1990 and requested that the agreement to sell ought to be executed in favour of the buyer directly and that at the time of executing the agreement, the buyer had paid Rs. 80,000/-. This amount was returned by Sanjay. Surendra also alleged that the buyer requested for cancellation of the Power of Attorney which was given to Sanjay. Sanjay requested Surendra for an advance in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- for the expansion of his business, which he was carrying on under the style of the first respondent proprietorship concern. Sanjay assured the plaintiff that he would return the amount shortly. Accordingly, Rs. 80,000/- was given by the plaintiff (Surendra) to Sanjay.

3. Sanjay issued three post-dated cheques for the sum of Rs. 16,500/-, Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 60,000/- all dated 16.02.1990, drawn on the State Bank of India, Indore Branch. Before the due date, Sanjay requested the plaintiff (Surendra) not to present the cheques for collection for a few months; this request was complied with. The cheques, when presented, were returned by the banker to the plaintiff (Surendra). In these circumstances, the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 80,000/- (together with interest @ 12% till the date of the filing of the suit and for future interest, consequently, was instituted.

4. Sanjay, in his written statement denied the suit allegations. However, the written statement did not dispute the execution of the GPA or that he had entered - on behalf of the plaintiff, into the agreement to sell with Niranjan Singh Nagra and obtained Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money. The written statement also did not deny that Sanjay requested Surendra for a loan of Rs. 80,000/- which was given to him. However, in the defense, Sanjay alleged that Surendra asked him to return the amount on the same day i.e. 30.01.1990, which he did. The written statement then alleged that Sanjay repeatedly asked for the return of the three cheques but being the maternal uncle, the plaintiff insisted on keeping the three instruments, and prevailed upon him as the elder relative. It was also alleged in the written statement that Sanjay was assured that the cheques would be returned on the next day; however they were never returned.

5. After framing issues and recording evidence, the trial court dismissed this suit. The trial court was of the opinion that the evidence clearly showed that a sum of Rs. 80,000/- had been deposited by Surendra in his bank account and that this circumstance, supported Sanjay's plea that the amount was returned immediately. The trial court was also of the opinion, that the discrepancy in the amount received towards the sale consideration, casts doubt regarding the veracity of the plaintiff's claim. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, Surendra appealed to the High Court. During the course of appeal, two applications seeking to amend the pleading and relief clause in the plaint were sought.

6. The High Court after an overall reading of the evidence framed three points for consideration, while dealing first with the applications, and then the merits: they were firstly, the consideration of the sale of the suit property - if it was for Rs. 2,30,000/- and not Rs. 1,30,000/-; secondly, whether such fact had to be pleaded by the plaintiff in the suit and lastly, whether in the absence of such pleading, it was necessary to allow the application for amendment. The High Court after analyzing the nature of evidence led, concluded that since Sanjay had admitted the signature on the agreement to sell, as well as the plaintiff's GPA, even though the document was a photocopy, it could not be ignored.

7. The impugned judgment also reasoned that there was no dispute that another agreement to sell was executed on 30.01.1990 by the plaintiff (Surendra) in favour of Niranjan Singh Nagra, where the sale consideration was showed to be Rs. 1,30,000/-. The sale was also undisputedly completed on 31.01.1990. It was held that in these circumstances, the plaintiff had Rs. 1,80,000/- as on 30.01.1990, which clearly showed that the real consideration for the transaction was Rs. 2,30,000/-, though the document subsequently executed showed a lesser value as Rs. 1,30,000/-. The court noted that Surendra had not relied upon these circumstances to seek relief on the basis of the contract (for sale). The High Court then reasoned that these documents were needed only to consider their impact vis-a-vis the defendants' claim for return of Rs. 80,000/-.

8. The High Court in its impugned judgment upheld the plaintiff's contention that he possessed sufficient amount to advance Rs. 80,000/- to Sanjay. He also had sufficient funds to deposit amounts in the bank account, for which statement of account, Ex. D/1 was on the record. Given that the real consideration for the transaction was Rs. 2,30,000/-, the fact that some amount was deposited in the bank account, did not in any way detract from the suit claim. The court, therefore, held that the deposit by itself could not be relied on, that the amount was paid to Sanjay who issued three cheques. The High Court then concluded and held as follows:-

"15. Since it is not disputed by the respondents that the loan amount of Rs 80,000/- was given by the appellant on 30/01/90 and the dispute is only whether the amount was returned by the respondent no. 2 to the appellant on that very day on not, the important documents are Ex. P/1 to P/3, the cheques and the receipt of Rs 60,000/- Ex. P/9, which was issued by the respondent no. 2 in favour of appellant. When the amount was given back by the respondent no. 2 to the appellant on that very day then it is surprising why the receipt Ex. P/9 and the cheques Ex. P/1 to P/3 were not taken back by the respondent no. 2 from the appellant and why the receipt of refund of the amount was not taken. Apart from this there is nothing on record to show that why the cheque of Rs. 30,000/- Ex. P/8 was given by the respondent no. 2 to the appellant. These all documents goes to show beyond doubt that the appellant who is maternal-uncle of the respondent no. 1 lent a sum of Rs 80,000 to the Respondent no. 2, in lieu of which the cheques EX. P/1 to P/3 were not taken back by the respondent no. 2 as proprietor of respondent no. 1 and the amount was returned by the respondents to the appellant.

16. In view of this appeal stands allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22/07/95 passed by learned XIIIth Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 98-B/93 is set aside. Respondents are directed to pay Rs 80,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a w.e.f. 16/02/90 with a period of two months, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay the interest on the aforesaid amount @ 12% per annum. Respondents shall also be liable for the costs through out."

9. It is argued by Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant that the high court committed an error in appreciation of the evidence and that the plaintiff had come forward with an entirely new case, in the cross-examination which was not backed by the pleadings. He further submitted that the impugned judgment was in error because it placed reliance on inadmissible documents and rendered findings exclusively based upon their appreciation. It was highlighted, that the impugned judgment was conjectural inasmuch as the court connected the receipt issued by Sanjay with the agreement, showing the sale consideration to be Rs. 2,30,000/-. It was emphasized that the original agreement was never produced or made part of the record.

10. Mr. Santosh Kumar next submitted that being a prohibited transaction, the story put forward by the plaintiff that the real value of the sale of Rs. 2,30,000/- as against the declared value of Rs. 1,30,000/- could not be countenanced by the court as it was contrary to the public policy. He also relied on the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereafter "the Benami Act") to submit that any plea based on benami transactions could not be canvassed in courts. It was argued that as on 30.01.1990 or soon thereafter, the plaintiff did not have any amount in his bank account. Counsel lastly argued that consistent position of the defendant, Sanjay was that the three cheques were issued to the plaintiff at the latter's insistence and that despite repeated requests, they were not returned. This was clearly stated in the written statement and was consistently reiterated during the course of the oral deposition. The high court, it was urged, fell into error in completely overlooking this aspect.

11. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent that the basis for dismissal of the suit by the trial court was that the amount in question was part of the sale consideration of a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- for the plot belonging to the respondent which has been sold and from which Rs. 50,000/- had been received earlier, and the remaining Rs. 80,000/- was received on the day when the loan had been given to the appellants. The trial court observed that the sum of Rs. 80,000/- was received by the plaintiff and was deposited in the bank account on the next day, i.e. 31.1.1990. It is further argued that when this question was put to the plaintiff, it was explained that the entire transaction was for a consideration of Rs. 2,30,000/- and not Rs. 1,30,000/- and therefore, the amount deposited in the bank account had nothing to do with the loan advanced to the appellants.

12. It is argued that the first agreement dated 03.7.1989 was executed for a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- by the first appellant himself on behalf of the plaintiff, and in fact that agreement was put to the first appellant/defendant in cross-examination where he stated that:

".....it is corrected that my signature appears below at page no. 3 of stamp papers purchased on 3rd July. Witness himself stated that no any such agreement had been executed. Stamp paper only had been purchased in the name of fair communication. My signature appears for A to A on the page no. two and three annexed with the stamp paper dated 3rd July 1989' (Copy of the said agreement dated 3.7.1989 is Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-2)

13. It is urged that the first appellant admitted his signature on the said document in his cross-examination; thus, clearly, the fact was established. The original of the document was with the buyer of the property and this fact was admitted by the appellant in his statement; therefore, its photocopy was produced. The document was relevant only to show that the plaintiff had the funds to advance to Sanjay and when extension of the loan to the appellant was admitted, the document is of no consequence.

14. What can be gleaned from the above narrative and submissions is that the plaintiff wished to dispose of his property at Indore, where the second defendant, nephew resided and carried on business. Since the parties were related, the plaintiff relied on the defendant and constituted him as his attorney. An agreement to sell was entered into for the sale of the said property (a flat) on 03.07.1989: this fact is not disputed; equally, it is undisputed that the consideration for the flat in terms of this agreement was Rs. 2,30,000/-. This was admitted by Sanjay, the defendant in his deposition. It is also not disputed that the original agreement with the purchaser (who ultimately finalized the transaction), is dated i.e. 03.07.1989. A second agreement was entered into on 30.11.1989. However, this showed a lesser consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/-. It is also not disputed that Sanjay, the second appellant received Rs. 50,000/- from the buyer and handed over that amount to Surendra. Furthermore, on 29.01.1990, Surendra went to Indore at Sanjay's behest to conclude the transaction directly with the purchaser, Niranjan Singh Nagra. He also received the amount agreed. Also, there is no dispute that Sanjay wanted Rs. 80,000/- and was given it, by his uncle, the plaintiff, Surendra, for the purpose of expansion of his business. This is where the version of the two parties diverges: Sanjay alleged that the amount was returned the next day and that Surendra did not return the post dated cheques issued by him; Surendra alleges that Sanjay in fact never returned the amount. The trial court was persuaded by arguments on behalf of Sanjay and the circumstance that the sum of Rs. 80,000/- was deposited in Surendra's account on the same day. The High Court, however, took note of the plaintiff's stand, with respect to the real consideration, which was Rs. 2,30,000/- as against what was shown in the document, to say that the amount deposited in Surendra's account had nothing to do with the money lent to Sanjay.

15. The defendant/appellants arguments are two-fold: one, that the document on which the High Court returned its findings was a photocopy and was therefore, inadmissible; and two, that the question whether the sale consideration was Rs. 2,30,000/-or Rs. 1,30,000/- could not have been gone into, since that argument was based on a prohibited transaction, outlawed by the Benami Act.

16. As far as the first question goes, this court notices that the plaintiff had put the matter, during the course of cross examination, to the appellant/defendant. The latter, unsurprisingly, admitted the document, despite the fact that it was a photocopy. The plaintiff had argued that the original of that document was with the purchaser: this was not denied. Once these were admitted, the plaintiff could not be faulted for seeking a consequential amendment, that was purely formal, to back his argument that there was sufficient money, after lending Rs. 80.000/- to the defendant, which was deposited in his account. The appellant's argument, in the opinion of this court, is insubstantial: the impugned judgment cannot be faulted on this aspect.

17. Now as to the second argument by the appellant, which is that the plaintiff's plea that the real consideration for the sale was Rs. 2,30,000/- entails returning findings that would uphold a plea based on a benami transaction, this court is of the opinion that the argument is unmerited. Benami is defined by the Act as a transaction where

(a) where a property is transferred to, or is held by, a person, and the consideration for such property has been provided, or paid by, another person; and

(b) the property is held for the immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect, of the person who has provided the consideration.

Benami transactions are forbidden by reason of Section 3; no action lies, nor can any defense in a suit be taken, based on any benami transaction: in terms of Section 4 of the Act.

18. In the opinion of this court, the argument that the plaintiff's plea regarding the real consideration being barred, has no merit. The plaintiff did not claim return of any amount from the buyer; the suit is not based on any plea involving examination of a benami transaction. Besides, the plaintiff is not asserting any claim as benami owner, nor urging a defense that any property or the amount claimed by him is a benami transaction. Therefore, the defendant appellant's argument is clearly insubstantial.

19. The relevant provisions of law, i.e. Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Act, read as follows:

"Prohibition of benami transactions.

3. (1) No person shall enter into any benami transaction.

(2)Whoever enters into any benami transaction shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.

(3) Whoever enters into any benami transaction on and after the date of commencement of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), be punishable in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter VII.]

(4) [***]

Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami.

4. (1) No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property.

(2) No defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property..."

20. In Valliammal (D.) by L.Rs vs. Subramaniam & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 233, this Court held that the onus of establishing that a transaction is benami is upon one who asserts it:

"13. This Court in a number of judgments has held that it is well established that burden of proving that a particular sale is benami lies on the person who alleges the transaction to be a benami. The essence of a benami transaction is the intention of the party or parties concerned and often, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof. Refer to Jaydayal Poddar vs. Bibi Hazra, Krishnanand Agnihotri vs. State of M. P., Thakur Bhim Singh vs. Thakur Kan Singh, Pratap Singh vs. Sarojini Devi and Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra vs. Heirs of Parshottam S. Shah. It has been held in the judgments referred to above that the question whether a particular sale is a benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining the question no absolute formulas or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situations can be laid. After saying so, this Court spelt out the following six circumstances which can be taken as a guide to determine the nature of the transaction :

(1) the source from which the purchase money came ;

(2) the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase ;

(3) motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour;

(4) the position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged b

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

enamidar; (5) the custody of the title deeds after the sale; and (6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale. (Jaydayal Poddar vs. Bibi Hazra1, SCCp 7, para 6). 14. The above indicia are not exhaustive and their efficacy varies according to the facts of each case. Nevertheless, the source from where the purchase money came and the motive why the property was purchased benami are by far the most important tests for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of another. We would examine the present transaction on the touchstone of the above two indicia. 18. It is well-settled that intention of the parties is the essence of the benami transaction and the money must have been provided by the party invoking the doctrine of benami. The evidence shows clearly that the original Plaintiff did not have any justification for purchasing the property in the name of Ramayee Ammal. The reason given by him is not at all acceptable. The source of money is not at all traceable to the Plaintiff. No person named in the plaint or anyone else was examined as a witness. The failure of the Plaintiff to examine the relevant witnesses completely demolishes his case." These observations were reiterated in Binapani Paul vs. Pratima Ghosh & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC 100. 21. In the present case, the appellants did not prove that the transaction (to which they were not parties) was benami; on the contrary, the appellant's argument was merely that the transaction could not be said to be for a consideration in excess of Rs. 1,30,000/-: in the context of a defense in a suit for money decree. The defendant/appellants never said that the plaintiff or someone other than the purchaser was the real owner; nor was the interest in the property, the subject matter of the recovery suit. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the conclusions and the findings in the impugned judgment are justified. 22. For the foregoing reasons, this court is of opinion that there is no merit in the appeal; it is accordingly dismissed, without order on costs.
O R