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



M/s. Oxygen the Digital Shop, Pulimoottil Arcade, Kottayam & Another v/s Namadevan.L., Anna Garments & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- D R GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101GJ2005PTC046010

Company & Directors' Information:- R. R. GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1995PLC095544

Company & Directors' Information:- S G GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2004PLC098193

Company & Directors' Information:- A N S OXYGEN PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U23203TN1984PTC010918

Company & Directors' Information:- K K P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921TZ1994PTC005334

Company & Directors' Information:- B K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2001PTC109850

Company & Directors' Information:- N K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2000PTC107093

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2005PTC101896

Company & Directors' Information:- G AND A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101PB1995PTC016121

Company & Directors' Information:- V H GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52322MH2008PTC181066

Company & Directors' Information:- ARCADE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1979PTC021304

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1996PTC083315

Company & Directors' Information:- DIGITAL OXYGEN PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PN2017PTC168990

Company & Directors' Information:- G. M. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2006PTC152683

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND D GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1975PTC007923

Company & Directors' Information:- J S GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2009PTC135262

Company & Directors' Information:- K. B . GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2011PTC166954

Company & Directors' Information:- A K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2015PTC282847

Company & Directors' Information:- D P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2004PTC129479

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143084

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P GARMENTS PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143556

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101HR2005PTC068124

Company & Directors' Information:- L. H. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17121KA2011PTC060761

Company & Directors' Information:- K R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111WB1998PTC087046

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52321TN1993PTC025318

Company & Directors' Information:- P. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204DL2007PTC164238

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17121DL2007PTC165007

Company & Directors' Information:- DIGITAL-X INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA1987PTC008715

Company & Directors' Information:- T S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51494DL1996PTC076668

Company & Directors' Information:- GARMENTS INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909GJ1979PTC003310

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC164129

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC164404

Company & Directors' Information:- ANNA GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18100MH2003PTC141222

Company & Directors' Information:- B G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC142488

Company & Directors' Information:- S P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC120709

Company & Directors' Information:- P N GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2004PTC127524

Company & Directors' Information:- SHOP INDIA SHOP PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900MH2013PTC247958

Company & Directors' Information:- V & S DIGITAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900UP2013PTC060410

Company & Directors' Information:- V P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18109DL2012PTC233293

Company & Directors' Information:- S T GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2015PTC277043

Company & Directors' Information:- P L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2013PTC248417

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC164395

Company & Directors' Information:- R A GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC123385

Company & Directors' Information:- C S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC134787

Company & Directors' Information:- B L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC136912

Company & Directors' Information:- B D S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC137898

Company & Directors' Information:- T G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143392

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U18101DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- G P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC161067

Company & Directors' Information:- I B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2013PTC257044

Company & Directors' Information:- M M ARCADE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2007PTC160422

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U74110DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- A G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51300DL2013PTC257609

Company & Directors' Information:- V R V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2008PTC182256

Company & Directors' Information:- M V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899HR2005PTC141797

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17120HR2013PTC049037

Company & Directors' Information:- V K GARMENTS PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1981PTC012410

Company & Directors' Information:- A S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17212CH1992PTC012350

Company & Directors' Information:- V R GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101CH1991PTC011345

Company & Directors' Information:- S B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2005PTC141954

    Appeal Nos. 621 of 2013 & 660 of 2013

    Decided On, 21 June 2016

    At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. A. RADHA
    By, MEMEBR
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Appellants: Saji Mathew, M/s. S.G. Chancery Chambers, S. Fathima, Advocates. For the Respondents: Prabhu Vijayakumar, M/s. Maya Chambers, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Common Judgment: (A. Radha : Member)

Both these appeals arise out of the order passed in C.C. No.289/2010 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the appellants in A-621/13 & 660/13 respectively and 1st respondent is the complainant.2. The case of the complainant is that on 25/3/2010 he had purchased a laptop from the 1st opposite party manufactured by the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.35,467/-. It is alleged in the complaint that on 16/7/2010 the laptop was not working and approached the 1st opposite party and entrusted it for service. Subsequently it was returned with a direction to entrust the laptop with the 2nd opposite party. On 31/7/2010 the 2nd opposite party issued a job sheet to the complainant after noting the defects 'Physical damage on left back corner, scratches on body'. After 5 days the technician of the 2nd opposite party contacted the complainant and informed that the mother board of the laptop was damaged and that cannot be repaired. It is stated in the complaint that the laptop was first handed over to the 1st opposite party’s service centre where it is noted that the problem as 'not on'. If there had any scratches or damages in the laptop the 1st opposite party would have noted in the goods inward note supplied to the complainant. The complainant denies that the damage had occurred while it was in the custody of the complainant. It was assured by the opposite parties that the Sony Vio Laptops are of best quality and there is replacement warranty for one year. Believing the words of the opposite parties the complainant purchased the laptop. The 2nd opposite party issued a vague reply stating that the laptop was not functioning due to the damage caused while mis-handling it by the complainant and not due to any manufacturing defect or other defects. The complainant alleges that the laptop supplied to the complainant is a defective one and is entitled for a new laptop instead of a defective one. The complaint is filed for replacement with a new laptop and also for Rs.1 Lakh towards mental agony. The complainant is an Astrologer and is using the laptop for taking printout for horoscope which is highly necessary for his livelihood. Hence filed this complaint.

3. The 1st opposite party is a business concern and is selling the products of various companies on a meagre margin. The sale of laptop to the complainant is admitted. When the complainant approached with the complaints of laptop on 16/7/2010, the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to the 2nd opposite party, the authorized service centre as there had the defect to the lap top as ‘not on’. The 1st opposite party did not exactly know about the actual cause for the defect in the laptop owned by the complainant. The communication between the complainant and the representative of the 2nd opposite party are not within the direct knowledge of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party had not given any promise to repair or replace the laptop at the time of purchase contrary to the warranty conditions offered by the manufacturer. It is an admitted fact that the laptop was working upto 15/7/2010 after the purchase. Hence no deficiency in service can be attributed upon the 1st opposite party and the complaint is only to be dismissed.

4. The 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of Sony Laptop and it is admitted that the 1st opposite party is the dealer of the 2nd opposite party. It is contended that the 2nd opposite party has principal to principal relationship with its dealers. The laptop was purchased on 25/3/2010 from the 1st opposite party and used until 15/7/2010 which itself shows that the alleged defect in the laptop cannot be a manufacturing defect. If there had any manufacturing defect the complainant would not have been able to use the laptop for 4 months without any problem. The other contention raised is that there is no report of an independent expert with regard to the alleged defect in the product. There is no reliable evidence produced by the complainant in support of his case that he had suffered loss due to the defect in the laptop and complainant is not entitled to any relief. The laptops are provided with warranty which is governed by terms and conditions and warranty period is restricted to one year. It is also specifically stated in the warranty condition that the damage or loss to any software problems, data or removable storage media or damage due to acts of god and accident, misuse abuse, negligence, commercial use or modifications to product etc. do not cover warranty. The opposite party is not liable to provide warranty in cases of mis-handling of the laptop and physical damage caused to the laptop due to the act of the consumer as per clause-VIII of the warranty terms. It is clear that the alleged laptop of the complainant had physical damage caused on the left back corner due to the negligence of the complainant and the scratches on the body might have been caused due to mis-handling of the laptop. Since the complainant violated the terms of warranty the opposite parties are not liable to provide warranty cover contemplated between the parties. The complainant as an astrologer is indulged in commercial use by taking horoscope etc. and availing such service the complainant will not come under the ‘consumer’ and the complaint is not maintainable. The job sheet dated 31/7/2010 issued by the service centre of the 2nd opposite party clearly mentioned that the laptop is out of warranty as it is physically damaged. The warranty provided to the complainant is not an unconditional one and is restricted to the terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty. The complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the laptop nor any deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. Hence the 2nd opposite party is not liable for replacement of the laptop of the complainant. The complaint is filed merely to harass the opposite parties and there is no ground for awarding any compensation.

5. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exbts: A1 to A7 were marked. No oral evidence or documents adduced by opposite parties.

6. The appellant in appeal No.621/13 is the 1st opposite party who is the dealer of the 2nd respondent. The purchase of laptop from the appellant is admitted and it is also an undisputed fact that the laptop was in good working condition for 4 months after the purchase of the laptop. It is not in dispute that the laptop is having warranty for one year. The appellant received the laptop on 16/7/2010 which is evidenced by Exbt: A3 wherein it is stated the problem 'not on' in the goods inward note. The appellant directed the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent who is the authorized service centre of the appellant. The service job sheet issued by the 2nd respondent’s reception remarks showing 'ADP 00095399 physical damage on left back corner, scratches on body' - so it is clear from documents that the laptop produced by 1st respondent is having physical damage. Thereafter it is the case of 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent refused to rectify the defects having physical damage as it does not cover warranty. While the respondent brought the laptop for repair the goods inward notes clearly stated that the problem is 'not on'. Thereafter the 1st respondent was directed to contact the 2nd respondent. The laptop was not serviced or rectified by this appellant. Hence no deficiency in service can be attributed upon this appellant. It is on the advice of the appellant the 1st respondent approached the 2nd respondent who is the authorized agent of the manufacturer. The 1st respondent has not proved any manufacturing defect with an expert opinion. The appellant had not serviced the laptop on acceptance. The warranty is based on the terms and conditions and being a dealer of the 2nd respondent no liability can be attributed upon the appellant.

7. The counsel for the appellant in A-660/13 who is the authorized agent of the manufacturer submitted that the 1st respondent/complainant purchased the laptop vio from the dealer on 25/3/2010. There had no complaint until 16/7/2010. It is on the advice of the 2nd respondent the 1st respondent/complainant contacted and brought the laptop to the appellant. The purchase is admitted by the appellant and there is no case for the 1st respondent that there had any problem within the 4 months until 16/7/2010 which itself shows that there had no manufacturing defect and was in fully working condition. It is settled principles of law that the parties are bound by the warranty terms and in this case the laptop purchased from the 2nd respondent is having warranty for one year. The appellant on acceptance of the laptop found out that the laptop is having physical damage on left back corner and also scratches on the body which certainly would cause by mis-handling of the 1st respondent. It is specifically mentioned in the warranty condition that the damage due to acts of god accident, mis-use, negligence etc. will not cover the warranty condition. At the time of delivery of the laptop the 1st respondent was satisfied with the working of laptop and had acknowledged the same and there had no defect for 4 months after the purchase. It is submitted that the warranty provided is reflected by clause-VIII of the terms of the warranty. Hence the physical damage does not cover the warranty conditions. It is also argued that the allegation of manufacturing defect is to be proved by an expert envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act which is absent in this case. There is no expert evidence to the effect that the laptop is having any manufacturing defect contrary to that there is physical damage which is clear from the evidence. It is also argued that the complainant is not a consumer as he is making profit out of the use of the laptop by taking horoscope. On that ground also the complaint is only to be dismissed. The Forum Below overlooked the main contention regarding the expert opinion while alleging manufacturing defect. In the absence of reliable evidence in support of the case, the respondent is not entitled for the claim put forth in the complaint.8. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the laptop purchased from the appellants could be used only for 4 months after payment of Rs.35,467/-. It is true that the laptop worked for 4 months but at the same time the laptop is having a warranty for one year. The appellants are liable to repair the laptop during the warranty period. The respondent being an astrologer was using the computer as a means of livelihood. When the laptop was given to the 1st opposite party no physical damage noticed to the laptop. Moreover, the respondent could not use the laptop even during the warranty period. The appellants/opposite parties are liable to rectify the defects and are liable

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

for the mental agony caused to the respondent and to pay compensation. The Forum Below rightly allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant. 9. We have heard both the counsels in detail and had gone through the documents on record. It is not in dispute the purchase of laptop in question from opposite parties. It is also not disputed that the laptop is having one year warranty. The complainant/1st respondent approached the Forum due to the manufacturing defect in the laptop. The onus of proving the alleged defect in the laptop lies upon the complainant/1st respondent being manufacturing defect. The respondent on the given facts has failed to discharge the onus to prove the case. It is settled law that the manufacturing defect is to be proved by expert opinion. Moreover, parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty. In the absence of the expert opinion we are of the considered view that the complainant failed to prove his case and the appeals are only to be allowed. In the result, both the appeals are allowed setting-aside the order passed by the Forum Below. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-09-2020 M/s. Indian Oxygen Limited, (Now known as BOC India Ltd.,), Oxygen House, Calcutta Versus M/s. A.N.S Oxygen (P) Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-06-2020 M/s. Sat Guru Oxygen Company, Chhattisgarh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
30-04-2020 R.K. Digital Solutions Versus Union of India & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-03-2020 Anushree Malviya Versus Reliance Digital Ltd. & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
03-03-2020 Prayag Polytech Private Limited Through Milan Aggarwal, Director C-587 Versus Iworld Digital Solution Private Limited National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
28-02-2020 M/s. Satguru Oxygen Company Versus Ashok Dutta High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-02-2020 M/s. R.K. Digital Solutions Versus Union of India & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
13-01-2020 Union of India rep. By its Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai Versus M/s. Raiments & Garments International, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 The General Manager, Aleppy Parcel Service, Alappuzha Versus Anil Kumar V., Managing Partner, Wetex Garments, Poovattuparamba, Kozhikode Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
22-11-2019 The Management Scotts Garments Limited, Trippur Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-10-2019 M/s. PJS Knit Garments, Rep.by its Partner, P. Sugansaran & Another Versus The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Tirupur Main Branch, Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2019 Dr. George Jacob, Ahaliya Foundation Eye Hospital, Thekkemuriyil Arcade, Pathanamthitta & Others Versus Krishnakumar & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
30-09-2019 Rathish Kumar, Proprietor, Mobile Planet, Chit Chat Arcade, Ramanchira, Thiruvalla Versus P.J. Abraham Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
17-09-2019 R. Ganesan M/s. Ganesh Vegetable Shop & Vanga Vanga Super Market Versus M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
06-08-2019 M/s. Indo Skins Garments Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, N. Thiagarajan, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-07-2019 Trinity High Grove Apartment Owners Association, Rep.by its President, Shri.Prakash Padiyath, Kochi Versus M/s.Trinity Arcade Private Limited, Edappally, Kochi & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
24-07-2019 The Officer In Charge, Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office & Another Versus M/s Godavari Garments Limited Supreme Court of India
23-05-2019 In Re: Mr. Kuntal Chowdhary 3, West Bengal, India Versus Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited Atlanta Arcade, Near Leela Hotel, Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai Maharashtra, India & Others Competition Commission of India
03-05-2019 Kunhiraman Versus Sreekumar Sadanandan, Regional Manager, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation (IRCTC), Salih Arcade, Ernakulam Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
05-04-2019 The District Collector, Kanchipuram Versus M/s. Gupta Garments, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Anil Gupta & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 Mridul Jain Versus Home Shop & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-04-2019 M/s. Ginni Garments & Another Versus M/s. Sethi Garments & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
04-04-2019 Ginni Garments and Others V/S Sethi Garments and Others. In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
27-03-2019 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram Versus M/s. Oberon Edifices & Estates (P) Ltd., The Arcade, Trivandrum High Court of Kerala
13-03-2019 The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Salem Division & Others Versus M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor Ibrahim Sha, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2019 Sri Venkateswara Oxygen (P) Limited, Coimbatore Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by The Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2019 Sri Venkateswara Oxygen (P) Limited, Coimbatore Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by The Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2019 Sri Venkateswara Oxygen (P) Limited, Coimbatore Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by The Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2019 M/s. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd, Rep. by Mr. L.N. Chaturvedi, Commercial Manager Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Ambattur Assessment Circle, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-12-2018 Batra Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-12-2018 Goodluck Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus., Surat-II High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
21-12-2018 M/s. Brightstar Telecommunications India Ltd. & Another Versus M/s. Iworld Digital Solutions Private. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
25-10-2018 Jayalakshmi N. Pillai & Another Versus Authorized Officer, Alfiya Arcade, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
25-10-2018 M/s. Prosper Jewel Arcade LLP, Represented herein by its Designated Partner, K.P. Veeran Kutty Versus The Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes & Others High Court of Karnataka
24-09-2018 M/s. Digital Illusion India Pvt.Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director S.V. Subramanyam & Another Versus M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory C. Gracy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2018 M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor, Ibrahim Sha, Chennai Versus The Divisional Railway Manager, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2018 M/s. Asiatic Oxygen Limited Versus Dcit, Circle - 4, Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
27-08-2018 M/s. Top Shop Versus New Delhi Municipal Council High Court of Delhi
10-08-2018 Sekerkote Foreign Liquor Shop, West Tripura & Another Versus The Union of India & Others High Court of Gauhati
06-08-2018 Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited Versus Sky Vision Digital Cable Network High Court of Delhi
24-07-2018 Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (Now ECGC Limited), Chennai & Another Versus Zoro Garments Private Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, N.F. Mogrella High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 M/s. Rasathe Garments, Rep by its Partner, Virudhunagar Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I, Virudhunagar High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 Bord for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) Versus Coromandel Garments Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-06-2018 Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep by its Secretary, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus M.M. Jose, Jomer Arcade Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
24-04-2018 Shuddhananda Yoga Samaj, Rep. by its Secretary Versus Rajeswari Book Shop, Rep. by its Proprietor, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-04-2018 The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department & Others Versus M/s. Madras Oxygen, Rep. by its Proprietor P.T. Jestice & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-04-2018 Subhodaya Digital Entertainment Private Limited Versus The State of Telanagana, rep. by Public Prosecutor & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
04-04-2018 Kandukuri Garments Versus Inspector of Legal Metrology High Court of Karnataka
04-04-2018 M/s. Sri Rengas Avitta Garments, Represented by its Partner, R. Rajaram & Another Versus R. Indira High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-03-2018 Ganga S. Mane Raibagkar Versus M/s. T & A, 10 and 11, Navelkar Arcade In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
09-03-2018 Micro Devices Inc Versus Infocom Digital Systems (P) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
08-03-2018 Super Cassettes Industries Ltd Versus Darsh Digital Network Pvt. Ltd High Court of Delhi
15-02-2018 M/s. Paramount Digital Color Lab & Others Versus M/s. Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
02-01-2018 A. Velumurugan Versus M/s. Sree Shiva Sakthi Garments, Represented by its Partner Venkatachalam, Tiruppur High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-12-2017 Saregama Ltd. Versus The New Digital Media & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-12-2017 M/s. Digital Illusion India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director S.V. Subramanyam & Another Versus M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory C. Gracy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-11-2017 Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. Versus ACIT Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
15-11-2017 Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. Versus ACIT Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
12-10-2017 Saregama India Limited Versus Eros Digital FZ LLC & Another High Court of Delhi
28-09-2017 Commissioner of Service Tax-VII V/S Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt. Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
28-09-2017 Commissioner, Service Tax-VII V/S Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt. Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
13-09-2017 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 10(3), Mumbai Versus M/s. Bombay Oxygen Corporation Limited, Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai
22-08-2017 M/s. Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt. Ltd. through its Senior General Manager R. Murali & Another Versus Union of India New Delhi represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
26-07-2017 Creative Garments Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E. & S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
12-07-2017 Milan Readymade Shop, Through its Partner, Lalji Vora Versus S.P.S. Selvaraj Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-07-2017 Nagori Ply Arcade Ltd. Versus Punjab National Bank High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-06-2017 Balakrishna Sadashiv Suvare & Others Versus The Amrutkumbh Construction Private Limited, Dimple Arcade, Kelkar High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
30-05-2017 Digital Communication V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
26-04-2017 M/s. R.M. Jaiswal Wine Shop, through its Partner Anil Ratanlal Jaiswal Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
23-03-2017 M/s. Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt Ltd Versus Airports Authority of India (Southern Region) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2017 R. Kumarasamy Versus Devaraj Arcade Private Limited & Company High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2017 Rohit Gujarilal Anand & Others Versus Arcade (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Through Its Managing Director M.G. Ramchandra) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-02-2017 The Management of Foundation Garments Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director ?Divine Grace? Versus Government of Tamil Nadu Labour & Employment (A1) Department, Represented by its Principal Secretary High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-02-2017 M/s. K. Sera Sera Digital Cinema Pvt. Limited, Through Dheeraj Salian Versus Digital Cinema Initiatives, California & Others Competition Appellate Tribunal
01-02-2017 M/s. K. Sera Sera Digital Cinema Pvt. Limited, Through Dheeraj Salian Versus Digital Cinema Initiatives, California & Others Competition Appellate Tribunal
19-01-2017 R.K. Rajkumar Proprietor M/s. Koghima Garments Versus The Registrar Debts Recovery Tribunal - III Spencer Towers Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2017 Kitex Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director-Sabu M. Jacob Versus State of Kerala, represented by Principal Secretary To Government, Taxes (H) Department & Another High Court of Kerala
02-01-2017 Sonal Garments V/S Commr. of Cus., Seaport (Import), Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
06-12-2016 Indian Overseas Bank and Others V/S Digital Avenues Ltd. and Others. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata
15-09-2016 M/s. Rasathe Garments Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I (FAC) Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-09-2016 Carol Garments & Another Versus The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2016 Satrohan Lal Fair Price Shop Holder Versus Joint Comissioner Food Div Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
09-08-2016 M/s Assam Oxygen Private Limited Versus The Assam Financial Corporation & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-07-2016 Naresh Gupta Versus State of Goa, Through Public Prosecutor, Navelkar Arcade & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
24-06-2016 R. Kumarasamy Versus Devaraj Arcade (P) Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-06-2016 In Re: M/s. K Sera Sera Digital Cinema Pvt. Ltd. Versus Digital Cinema Initiatives & Others Competition Commission of India
10-05-2016 Karnataka State Digital Cable TV Operators Welfare Association & Another Versus Siti Cable Networks Ltd. & Another Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
03-05-2016 In Re: Confederation of Real Estate Brokers? Association of India Versus Magicbricks.com Times Centre (Digital Content Production Facility) & Others Competition Commission of India
22-04-2016 R.K. Wine Shop Versus State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
02-03-2016 Sanjay C. Karalkar Versus DEN DIGITAL NETWORK And Others High Court of Delhi
17-02-2016 Shop Direct Group Versus Commissioners for Her Majesty?s Revenue & Customs United Kingdom Supreme Court
12-02-2016 M/s. Anjal Garments Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-01-2016 Kapil Kumar Versus Sahara Q Shop Unique Product Range Ltd. & Others Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur
23-09-2015 M/s. Karimpanal Arcade Owner's Welfare Association represented by its Secretary, M.K. Kumaran Versus State of Kerala, represented by its Chief Secretary To Government & Others High Court of Kerala
24-08-2015 Provident Fund Commissioner Versus M/s. Bena Garments High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-08-2015 The Manager, M/s. Oxygen the Digital Shop Versus Kunnath Ravindran Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
08-07-2015 J. Kannagi Versus Crystal Digital Solutions & Another Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
05-07-2015 Ram Wines (A4 Wine Shop), Nalgonda District & Others Versus State of Telangana & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
01-07-2015 M/s. Siti Guntur Digital Network Pvt. Ltd., A.P Versus M/s. Maa Television Network Ltd., A.P. & Another Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
05-06-2015 M/s. Triven Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director & Others Versus State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras