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



M/s. Innovative Enterprises v/s M/s. Steel & Tubes Syndicate


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

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL TUBES OF INDIA LTD [Active] CIN = L34300MP1959PLC000875

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:- K STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104JH1973PTC000998

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- S F TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910WB2014PTC200568

Company & Directors' Information:- T C TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74992MH2011PTC224694

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- INNOVATIVE ENTERPRISES PVT LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U51909AS1997PTC005197

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:- J S C STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106UP2013PTC061568

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:- M C TUBES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27105WB1988PTC044270

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

Company & Directors' Information:- C S TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27200MH2000PTC125998

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

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:- M J TUBES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27209WB1985PTC038634

Company & Directors' Information:- R M TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC040707

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:- P G STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24111AS1998PTC005409

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

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- C R STEEL AND TUBES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U28914TG1988PTC008443

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:- S R SYNDICATE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27209WB1979PTC032258

Company & Directors' Information:- C B SYNDICATE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1947PTC015009

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

Company & Directors' Information:- K. N. TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109WB2007PTC118571

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

Company & Directors' Information:- R TUBES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25201RJ1981PTC002305

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

Company & Directors' Information:- K B SYNDICATE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1977PTC031047

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL ENTERPRISES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27100WB1955PTC022699

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

Company & Directors' Information:- T R TUBES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27109HR1988PTC030280

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL SYNDICATE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1943PTC011310

Company & Directors' Information:- I R TUBES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U25191MH1981PTC024179

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:- A S STEEL TUBES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U25209CH1987PTC007611

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

Company & Directors' Information:- K P TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910MH2015PTC260603

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

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

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:- R S SYNDICATE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70200DL2012PTC240501

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

Company & Directors' Information:- A B C SYNDICATE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1951PTC020116

Company & Directors' Information:- S D M SYNDICATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999WB1950PLC018563

    Crl. A. No. 10 of 2010

    Decided On, 11 September 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. PONGIAPPAN

    For the Appellant: J. Jaseem Mohammed, Advocate. For the Respondent: P.V. Sanjeev, Advocate.



Judgment Text

R. Pongiappan, J.

1. The complainant in C.C.No.3788 of 2001 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, is the appellant herein. By a judgment dated 18.10.2006, the learned Magistrate convicted the respondents /accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereinafter referred to as "N.I. Act"] and sentenced the second respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to undergo further period of 2 months simple imprisonment.

2. Aggrieved over the said conviction, the accused prepared an Appeal [in Crl.A.No.301 of 2006] before the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, wherein he reversed the verdict of conviction and acquitted the respondents/accused. As against the order of acquittal dated 24.10.2009, the complainant has preferred the present Appeal.

3. The facts leading to the present Appeal may be stated briefly: The appellant [complainant] is a partnership firm carrying on the business in Galvanized Steel Tubes, Pipes, Pipe Fittings and other allied products. On behalf of the first accused firm [first respondent], the second accused [second respondent] in the capacity, as its partner approached the complainant and on the basis of the orders placed by the accused, the complainant supplied the materials to the accused. The last supply was made and the balance outstanding in this regard is Rs. 2,00,000/-. In order to discharge the liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing serial No.119234 dated 31.12.2000 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Chennai.

4. On receiving the said cheque, the complainant presented the same through his bankers for realisation on 17.05.2001 and the same was returned on 18.05.2001 with an endorsement "exceeds arrangement". The fact of the dishonour was intimated to the complainant by his bankers. Therefore, on 24.05.2001, the complainant issued a statutory notice to the respondents through his counsel under section 138 of N.I. Act. Having received the said notice, both the accused have failed and neglected to pay the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant filed a private complaint for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act.

5. In the trial Court, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1, besides 11 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On the side of the respondents, 3 witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and 11 documents were exhibited as D.1 to D.11. After concluding the trial, the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, convicted the accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.

6. After elaborate enquiry, on 24.10.2009, the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction. Against which, now the appellant being the complainant in the trial Court approached this Court for setting aside the judgment passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and for restoring the order of conviction passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

7. When the appeal is taken up for consideration, I have heard the arguments of Mr.J.Jaseem Mohammed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.P.V.Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant [complainant] contended that the Lower Appellate Court has erred in finding the respondents guilty of the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act stating that the material alteration found in the cheque is not an admitted alteration. Further, the Lower Appellate Court is not justified in applying the presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act.

9. Supporting the findings of the Lower Appellate Court, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the findings rendered by the Lower Appellate Court does not suffer from any infirmity.

10. Whether the order of acquittal passed by the Lower Appellate Court is manifestly erroneous warranting interference is the only point that arises for consideration in this Appeal.

11. Now, on going through the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court it was held that, the cheque now under dispute has been issued in the year of 1999 and subsequently the year 1999 materially altered as 2000. The said alteration was not done by the respondents, thereby, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Further, in the very same judgment, the First Appellate Court has held that the complainant did not prove the legally enforceable debt existed in the year 2000 and no document was produced in this regard either before the trial court or in the appellate court. So, for the said reason, the Appeal filed by the respondents was allowed.

12. Now on considering the material alteration alleged by the respondents, during the time of giving evidence, P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that he presented the cheque after 5 months from the date of issue. In otherwise, it was contended on the side of the respondents that the year mentioned by the respondents was altered as 2000 instead of 1999. Further, it is the case of the respondents, if the said date was altered definitely it is necessary to obtain the signature of drawer near to the correction. But in this case, there is no signature obtained from the drawer. In the said situation, during the time when the drawer of the cheque was examined as D.W.3, he has stated that the cheque now under dispute was handed over to the appellant's company on 16.06.1999. So, according to the case of the respondents, the date i.e. 16.06.1999 was filled with the date as "31.12.2000" and presented the same for enhancement.

13. In usual course, only the bank authorities are handle the cheques in day-to-day work. So, the evidence given by the bank officers alone are the competent evidence to solve the said issue.

14. In the trial Court, the Assistant Manager of Union Bank of India was examined as D.W.1, he has stated that the cheque under dispute has came to his bank on 30.12.2000 for enhancement. Further, he has stated that, if any correction is made in the date or in the amount, the full signature of drawer is necessary for passing the cheque. Further, the alteration made in Ex.P.1 is the permitting alteration but not a material alteration. However, on going through the Ex.P.1 as already stated that there is no signature found in the material alteration. So, with regard to the material alteration, the evidence given by D.W.1 is contradictory in nature.

15. Moreover, in the trial Court, the Branch Manager of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank was examined as D.W.2, he has stated in his evidence that for the correction made in the cheque, the full signature of drawer is necessary. Further, in the cross-examination after seeing the Ex.P.1, he has specifically stated that the year written through the typewriting machine was erased and corrected as 2000. Further, he stated that the said correction is not a permitted material alteration. Since, the evidence given by the D.W.2 is a crucial evidence, which changes the entire case of the appellant. In order to dispute the evidence given by D.W.2, on the side of the appellant, no supporting document was produced to substantiate the claim made by him. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court arrived at the conclusion that the Ex.P.1 cheque was materially altered is found correct.

16. Secondly, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in the trial Court in order to prove the liability of the respondents, as many as 11 documents were exhibited on the side of the complainant. Without considering the said documents, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the cheque pertaining to this case has not issued in order to discharge the liability of the respondents is nothing but erroneous one. Further, he submits that in order to rebut the presumption raised under section 139 of N.I. Act, the respondents have not produced any evidence and they failed to create a doubt over the case of the complainant.

17. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the copy of the invoice and the statement of accounts, which were marked as Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.4 proved that the respondents are not having any liability. Further, he would contend that the First Appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence of respondents and set aside the conviction and sentence, which does not need any interference.

18. Before considering the rival submissions made on either side, it is necessary to see the judgment of our Honourable Apex Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 wherein, it has observed as follows :

"26. In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G.Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54 may not be correct. However, this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in that case since it was based on the specific facts and circumstances therein. As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant."

27. .......

28. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own."

19. Accordingly, in this case also, the duty cast upon the respondents to rebut the presumption mandated under section 139 of N.I. Act.

20. In the trial Court, through the evidence of D.W.3, it was established, previous to the date in which the cheque was dishonoured, the respondents issued another 4 cheques for various amounts. Further, the same were acknowledged by the appellant through Ex.P.8. In the trial Court, it was the case of the respondents that the entire due was paid to the appellant through various cheques, for which, the copy of the accounts pertaining to the respondents was marked as Ex.P.6. On close scrutiny of the said document reveals that the cheques contained the serial number earlier to the date, in which, the cheque was issued has been presented and the same was collected. Further, as per Ex.R.7, Rs. 35,000/- was paid to the appellant. Likewise, as per Ex.P.8, Rs. 15,636/- was paid to the appellant through demand draft. The said facts are admitted by the complainant.

21. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the date, in which, the cheque was issued is a Holiday. Both the respondents are running the Company, issuing the cheque in the Holiday is also create a doubt, whether the transaction as stated by the appellant had happened or not. Further, at the time of filing the complaint, before the trial Court, the appellant did not enclose the copy of invoice to show his bonafide. However, only during the time of trial, he produced the invoice.

22. Apart from that during the time of cross-examination, P.W.1 has specifically stated as he did not know the date on which the material was supplied to the respondents, he has stated that for supplying the materials to the respondents, registers and bills were maintained, but those documents have not been exhibited before the trial Court. Further, he has stated that on 12.08.2000, the materials worth about Rs. 2,04,200/- were sent to the respondents through Invoice No.60

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

3, subsequently, in order to pay the said amount, the respondents issued the cheque in the month of December. So, the said evidence establish that after 4 months from the date of purchase, the respondents issued the cheque for the sale price, would create a doubt whether the transaction stated by the complainant is true or not. Further, creates a doubt, whether the said cheque was issued in order to discharge the liability arises in Invoice No.603 or not. 23. In the business community, it is the common practice to receive the blank cheque or filled cheque immediately after sending the materials. But in this case, the evidence of P.W.1 shows such practice is not adopted in this case. 24. In the light of the above discussions, the case of the appellant suffers through two reasons; [i] the material alteration stated by the respondents has not been properly explained, and [ii] the respondents raised a reasonable doubt in respect of his liability. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial Judge. 25. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant deserves no merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The order of acquittal dated 24.10.2009 passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, in Crl.A.No.301 of 2006 is hereby confirmed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

07-09-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore & Another Versus M/s. Syndicate Bank Central Accounts Department, Manipal High Court of Karnataka
21-08-2020 M/s. Metal Tubes & Rolling Mills, Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri (East) & Another Versus The Official Liquidator, Liquidator of Transpower Engineering Ltd. (In Liqn.) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Versus Steel Authority of India, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
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
29-04-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus State Tradings Corporation Of India Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
26-03-2020 The Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Versus M/s. Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
12-03-2020 Syndicate Bank Versus Dhanashreeli Chettiar & Another Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-02-2020 Hartex Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Versus Janardhan Rajbhar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
24-02-2020 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus GPT Steel Industries Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
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
07-02-2020 Syndicate Bank V/S Alaknanda Enterprises and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
07-02-2020 St. Daniel Christian Minority Educational Society V/S Syndicate Bank Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
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
03-02-2020 Syndicate Bank V/S Ravinder Singh Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
03-02-2020 Syndicate Bank V/S Narayanadri Institute of Science And Technology and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
31-01-2020 M/s. Indian Commercial Syndicate, Rep. by its Partner R. Natarajan, Coimbatore Versus The Special Committee, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-01-2020 Kannuri Lakshmi Versus Syndicate Bank & Another Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
13-01-2020 M/s. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Versus Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd. High Court of Jharkhand
10-01-2020 S. Devika & Others Versus Syndicate Bank, Main Branch, Represented by its Chief Manager/Authorized Officer C.N. Padmanabhan (Dead) High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-12-2019 M/s. Vijayalakshmi Ginning Factory, Represented by its partner, M. Ramesh Versus M/s. Syndicate Bank,Rajapalayam Branch & 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
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. 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
13-11-2019 Green Valley Farms, Palakkad, Represented by Its Partner Boby Austine & Another Versus Syndicate Bank, Palakkad, Represented by Its Manager & Others High Court of Kerala
06-11-2019 Syndicate Bank main branch, Statue Junction, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Chief Manager & Another Versus M. Mohammed Shooja High Court of Kerala
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
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 Aniket SA Investments LLC Versus Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-10-2019 Vanit Gupta & Another Versus Delta Iron & Steel Company P. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-10-2019 JSW Steel Ltd. Versus Mahender Kumar Khandelwal & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
05-09-2019 M/s. S.S. Steel Industry Versus M/s. Shri Guru Hargobind Steels High Court of Delhi
21-08-2019 Ramesh Kumar Vishwakarma & Others Versus Steel Authority of India Limited Through Its Managing Director, Bhilai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
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
29-07-2019 M/S Vishwaleela Steel Tube Industries & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-07-2019 State of Kerala, Represented by The Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus M/s. West Bengal Lottery Stockists Syndicate Private Limited, Represented by Its Director, Thangavel Senthil Kumar & Others High Court of Kerala
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
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
18-06-2019 M/s. Steel Complex Limited, Wisco Manor, Calicut, Represented by The Managing Director Versus K.G. Subramania Iyer High Court of Kerala
13-06-2019 A. Venkataraman Versus Syndicate Bank, Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka State & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-06-2019 M/s. India Metal One Steel Plate Processing Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 2 (2) High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-06-2019 Jain Tubes, Represented by its Partner, Hemant Kumar Jain Versus The State Tax Officer, Tondiarpet High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-05-2019 Adwaita Prasad Biswal Versus Rourkela Steel Plant High Court of Orissa
10-05-2019 Syndicate Bank Versus Surendra High Court of Delhi
09-05-2019 Dr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Director (Retired), Geological Survey of India, Shillong Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of steel & Mines, Department of Mines, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-05-2019 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Supreme Court of India
08-05-2019 M/s. Indus Steel & Alloys Ltd. Represented by its Director S.S. Srikanth & Others Versus D. Venkatesh Guptha & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-05-2019 Syndicate Bank, Kundara(B), Kollam, Rep.by its Chief Manager, M. Anil Menon Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
30-04-2019 Narendra Kumar Versus Chairman & Managing Director, Syndicate Bank & Others Supreme Court of India
25-04-2019 Sadashiv Yashwant Kumbhar & Others Versus M/s. S.J. Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-04-2019 Hari Steel & General Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Daljit Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
22-04-2019 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT (A) Bengaluru & Another Versus M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
22-04-2019 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT (A) Bengaluru & Another Versus M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
18-04-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited, Unit: Iisco Steel Plant Versus Workmen of Steel Authority of India Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-04-2019 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Cit A Bengaluru & Another Versus M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Supreme Court of India
09-04-2019 Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Bangalore Versus M/s. Jsw Steel Ltd. (Formerly Known As Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd.) Supreme Court of India
04-04-2019 M/s. Steel Park, Represented by its Partner A.S. Hasan Adbulcader, Valliyoor Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Nanguneri Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-04-2019 M/s. Paripooranam Steel Traders, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-04-2019 M/s. Swastika Steel & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Kol-II Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Regional Bench Kolkata
01-04-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited & Another Versus International Commerce Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-04-2019 M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. JSW Steel Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-03-2019 Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Commissionerate, Chennai Versus M/s. Kanishk Steel Industries Ltd., Gummidipoondi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-03-2019 Devika & Others Versus Syndicate Bank, Rep. by its Chief Manager & Authorised Officer, A. Narayana Shettigar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-03-2019 Md. Hakimuddin Parwana Versus Syndicate Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-03-2019 MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S A & Another Versus BRG Iron & Steel Company Private Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-03-2019 Syndicate Bank Representated By Authorized Representative, Malakpet Branch, Hyderabad & Another Versus Laxmi Nivas Plastics Pvt. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2019 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Versus M/s. Global Steel Holding Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
08-03-2019 Kamal Kumar Bhuwalka, Managing Director M/S Bhuwalka Castings & Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd) & Others Versus C.C.E. Bangalore Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
08-03-2019 Kamal Kumar Bhuwalka, Managing Director, M/s. Bhuwalka Castings & Forgings Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd) & Others Versus C.C.E.-Bangalore Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
07-03-2019 Sahu Shivaji Versus Ma Sakti Steel Traders Proprietor Sujeet Jaiswal High Court of Chhattisgarh
05-03-2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3 Versus Patel Alloy Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
28-02-2019 Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus M/s. Seaspray Shipping Co. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
25-02-2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Versus M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
25-02-2019 Punjab National Bank Versus Indian Steel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-02-2019 Surendra Versus Syndicate Bank High Court of Delhi
05-02-2019 M/s. Popular Steel Versus Raj Kumar & Another High Court of Delhi
05-02-2019 M/s. Popular Steel Versus Raj Kumar & Another High Court of Delhi
23-01-2019 Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited Versus M/s. Ganesh Containers Movers Syndicate Supreme Court of India
15-01-2019 Ritam Steel Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI & Others High Court of Delhi
14-01-2019 Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Sarvan Kumar High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-01-2019 John Distilleries Pvt. Limited Versus The Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-01-2019 Syndicate Bank Versus Sushmita Dasgupta National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-01-2019 Ajay Kumar Malhotra (Director M/s. Rathi Steel (Dakshin) Ltd. Versus CCE, Alwar Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
02-01-2019 M/s. JSW Steel Limited Salem Works, Salem & Others Versus Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chennai Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
28-12-2018 N.M. Xavier, Kochi Versus Syndicate Bank, Ernakulam & Others Debts Recovery Tribunal Ernakulam
07-12-2018 M/s. Syndicate Bottles Pvt. Ltd, Represented by its Director A. Rahul, Chennai Versus The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras