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



M/s. Steel Complex Limited, Wisco Manor, Calicut, Represented by The Managing Director v/s K.G. Subramania Iyer


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

Company & Directors' Information:- KG CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100DN2005PLC000185

Company & Directors' Information:- E COMPLEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63000GJ1995PTC026113

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:- J M G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105BR1992PTC004985

Company & Directors' Information:- WISCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109MH2008FTC185631

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:- B L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1981PTC034021

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

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:- C P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2008PTC127447

Company & Directors' Information:- R R COMPLEX PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201RJ1996PTC011855

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:- A B COMPLEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB1998PTC087513

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

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:- L N STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310WB2007PTC118206

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- I. P. COMPLEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2009PTC037898

Company & Directors' Information:- S M COMPLEX PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1995PTC072430

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:- J R COMPLEX LTD [Active] CIN = U70101RJ1993PLC007559

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

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- V. C. COMPLEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201RJ2010PTC031703

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

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

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

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- IYER & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26993TN1946PTC000933

Company & Directors' Information:- IYER AND IYER PVT. LTD. [Not available for efiling] CIN = U74140MH2000PTC901620

    RSA. No. 652 of 2004

    Decided On, 18 June 2019

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SOMARAJAN

    For the Appellant: M. Pathrose Matthai, Sr. Advocate, G. Unnikrishnan, Saji Varghese, Mariam Mathai, Advocates. For the Respondent: P.A. Harish, V.V. Surendran, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. The defendant came up with this appeal, against decree and judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court granting a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.93,624/- being the salary arrears commencing from July,1993 to February 1994 due to the plaintiff.

2. The dispute is with respect to the application of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short SICA, 1985) and the bar of jurisdiction in dealing with the matter by a Civil Court.

3. Admittedly the suit was brought up for recovery of arrears of salary. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below regarding the amount due by way of salary and no sufficient reason brought to the notice of this court to interfere with the said finding on fact.

4. Ext.B5 is the scheme constituted under Section 17 of the SICA,1985, by which the bar under Section 22 came into effect as on the date of suit. It was submitted by the respondent that the company was revived during the pendency of second appeal and thereby the company was brought out of the scheme under Section 17 and the bar under Section 22 of the SICA, 1985. Hence the decree of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are valid and the bar under Section 22 would not come into play, it was argued. The subsequent development admitted by both the counsel that the company was revived during the pendency of this appeal and that at present the bar under Section 22 of SICA,1985 not available. But it is also submitted by the learned counsel Sri.G.Unnikrishnan that since there was application of Section 22 of SICA,1985 as on the date of suit and on the date of decree of both the trial court and the First appellate court, the same can only be regarded as nullity in the eye of law and not capable of acquiring any legal sanctity based on a subsequent development. It was also submitted that when the decree found to be a nullity, it will not have any legal effect and not capable of revival,though the bar under Section 22 of SICA, 1985 subsequently ceased to have effect on the subject matter. Inorder resolve the issue it is necessary to consider the following questions:-

(i)Whether the bar under Section 22 read with Section 16 and 17 of SICA, 1985 would continue to operate against the proceedings initiated before a Civil Court, when the company revived and became a non sick industrial company during its pendency?

(ii) What would be the legal effect of two decrees suffered by the company both in the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and whether it would be a nullity in the eye of law, by virtue of express bar under Section 22 of SICA,1985?

(iii) When the decree found to be hit by a statutory bar, what would be the effect of a subsequent development which would take away the debarring provision? Is there any difference in the legal position, when the decree not attained finality?

(iv) What would be the legal effect of absence of equal and efficacious alternative remedy attached/connected with a statutory bar?

(v) What would be the jurisdiction with a civil court when there is an express statutory bar and whether it is not within the jurisdiction of a civil court to decide the application of a statutory bar ?

5. It was submitted by Sri.G.Unnikrishnan that when there is a bar either express or implied, a decree granted by the Civil Court is a nullity and may not have any legal consequences by relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Managing Director, Bhoruka Textiles Limited v. Kashmiri Rice Industries (2009 (7) SCC 521) (ii) Ghansyam Sarda v. M/s Shiv Shankar Trading Co. and others (AIR 2015 SC 403) (iii) Chief Engineer, Hydel Project and others v. Ravinder Nath and other (2008 KHC 4142) (iv) Reheja Universal Limited v. NRC Limited and others (2012 (4) SCC 148) and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Hameed v. Ittoop (1970 KLT 501).

6. Whether an adjudication or a decree by a Civil Court would be a nullity depends on the question whether there is 'inherent lack of jurisdiction' with the Civil Court in passing a decree on a disputed subject matter. The expression 'inherent lack of jurisdiction' is not synonymous with a statutory bar. The expression 'inherent lack of jurisdiction' stands for complete lack of jurisdiction either inherent or otherwise. Lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction would also constitute 'inherent lack of jurisdiction'. In the case of statutory bar debarring exercise of jurisdiction by a Civil Court will not come under the purview of 'inherent lack of jurisdiction', but would satisfy only 'lack of jurisdiction' by virtue of the debarring provision. When the debarring provision found to be inoperative, or when there is no equal and efficacious alternative remedy provided, it will not take away the inherent jurisdiction with the Civil Court under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. It is further subjected to certain other limitations - based on pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. But statutory ouster by a debarring provision annexed with equal and efficacious alternative remedy will not take away the inherent jurisdiction and hence cannot be a case of 'lack of inherent jurisdiction', if the Civil Court has exercised its jurisdiction either ignoring or rejecting the debarring provision or without noticing the debarring provision. It may be a case of 'lack of jurisdiction', and certainly not a case of 'lack of inherent jurisdiction' and the decree passed in the former case would be a voidable one and may not be a nullity in its very inception, though in the later one, the decree would be a nullity and would fall within the sweep of 'lack of inherent jurisdiction'. A decree which suffers 'inherent lack of jurisdiction' cannot be equated with a decree which suffers a statutory bar. The decree of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, hence, cannot be construed as a nullity in its very inception. The expression nullity stands for nonest in the eye of law. Both the decree of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, though suffers the express bar under Section 22 of the SICA,1985, the subsequent development of revival of the company, would take away the application of bar under Section 22 of the SICA, 1985, inspite of the fact that the express bar thereunder was available and operative, as on the date of suit, decree of Trial Court and decree of the First Appellate Court. It is during the pendency of this appeal, the company was revived and re-transformed into a non-sick Industrial Company and thereby brought out of the bar under Section 22 of SICA,1985. The scheme under Section 17 also extinguished by efflux of time and by revival of the company as a non sick Industry. Then the question comes, what would be the legal effect of revival of the company on a subsequent event, which would take away the application of debarring provision under Section 22 of the SICA,1985 and whether it would legalize the decrees passed by the Courts below, though initially, there was an express bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court. If the decree is a nullity in its very inception, there cannot be any revival or subsequent legalization, but if it is not a nullity in its very inception, though may be a voidable one, it can be validated and legalized by a subsequent act. The question whether a decree is a nullity in its very inception or not lies on the distinction between the expression “lack of jurisdiction” and “inherent lack of jurisdiction” and its respective legal consequences thereof.

7. To resolve the issue, it is necessary to ascertain what actually constitute a statutory bar, either express or implied. A statutory bar would operate only when it is annexed/connected with an equal and efficacious alternative remedy. In the absence of a forum to redress the grievance or a statute conferring a right instead of adjudicating the dispute, there cannot be a functional bar either by statute or otherwise. The express or an implied bar will operate and bind on the parties only when the same is annexed with an equal and efficacious alternative remedy or by conferring a right on the party instead of getting the grievance redressed through any forum. The basic principle governing a statutory bar either by a special enactment or otherwise is resting on the availability under the enactment (either special or otherwise) a provision for redressing the grievance by way of an equal and efficacious alternative remedy or by conferring a right in substitution of remedy. In the absence of an equal and efficacious alternative remedy or conferment of a right in substitution of an efficacious remedy, there cannot be a functional debarring provision. It is within the jurisdiction of civil court to ascertain the availability of an alternative remedy or a right conferred in substitution of a remedy so as to determine the application of a debarring provision.

8. The Apex Court in Chief Engineer, Hydel Project and Others v. Ravinder Nath and Others (2008 KHC 4142) by relying on the earlier decision in Bahrein Petroleum Co.Ltd. v. P.J.Pappu, (1966 (1) SCR 461=AIR 1966 SC 634), had settled the legal position by extracting the relevant portion of the judgment which is extracted below for reference:-

“It is well settled and needs no authority that where a court takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. A decree passed by a court having no jurisdiction is non est and its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced as a foundation for a right, even at the stage execution or in collateral proceedings. A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a coram non judice.”

(Emphasis supplied)

9. The Apex Court in Managing Director, Bhoruka Textiles Limited's case (supra) has considered the application of Section 16 and 22 of the SICA,1985 and the question whether the jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment is extracted below for reference:

“If the civil court's jurisdiction was ousted in terms of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, any judgment rendered by it would be coram non judice. It is well-settled principle of law that a judgment and decree passed by a court or tribunal lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan this Court held: (AIR 1954 SCC 340, Para.6)

“6...It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.”

(Emphasis supplied)

10. Two legal aspects emerges from the above said judgments that a decree of a Civil Court or a Tribunal 'lacking inherent jurisdiction' would be a nullity and that defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.

11. The legal position was again reiterated by the Apex Court in Ghanshyam Sarda v. M/s. Shiv Shankar Trading Co.and others (AIR 2015 SC 403) while dealing with a batch of cases, that BIFR (Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction) has exclusive jurisdiction over Sick Company by virtue of operation of Section 22(1),26 and 32(1) of SICA,1985 in exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction over the matter, by referring the decision rendered in Managing Director, Bhoruka Textiles Limited's case (supra). From the discussion, the necessary corollary is that a decree which suffers an 'inherent lack of jurisdiction' either territorial or pecuniary would alone stand as a nullity, but a decree which suffers only a statutory bar is not a nullity in its very inception though it would be voidable at the hands of opposite party either in the same proceedings or in a collateral proceedings. Till that time, the legal consequences would flow out of the decree unless the same was brought under challenge at any stage of litigation, execution or any collateral proceedings. The argument that the decree passed by the Trial Court confirmed in appeal is a nullity in its very inception, no legal consequences would flow out of it and not capable of revival, cannot be sustained, though it is permissible to challenge the validity of the decree on account of any debarring provision, at any stage of litigation or in a collateral proceedings.

12. Though there is an express bar, the Court cannot easily infer that there is ouster of jurisdiction. The Apex Court had the occasion to consider whether the ouster of Civil Court jurisdiction can be readily inferred in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2009 KHC 4524- 2009 (4) SCC 299). It cannot be readily inferred unless the jurisdiction is barred expressly or impliedly by a statute.

13. On an earlier occasion in ITI Ltd v. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd-2002 KHC 1279: AIR 2002 SC 2308: 2002(5) SCC 510, the Apex Court laid down the legal position that the exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction cannot be easily inferred, as there is always a strong presumption that the Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to decide all disputes of civil nature.

14. It was held in Saraswati v. Lachanna - 1994 KHC 1107:1994(1) SCC 611, that when the statute does not create a right nor provides any remedy or creates a right or liability and provides no forum for adjudication of a dispute arising out of such right or liability, ouster of Civil Court's jurisdiction shall not be readily inferred.

15. It is well within the jurisdiction of the Court to test and determine the existence of a valid statute governing ouster of jurisdiction, for that purpose the Civil Court can look into the question of the validity of debarring provision in the touch stone of alternative remedy provided. In the absence of alternative remedy or conferment of a right in substitution of remedy, the Civil Court jurisdiction would not stand as debarred and it can proceed with the suit and to adjudicate the dispute and in that situation, there cannot be an 'inherent lack of jurisdiction' and as such the decree, if any, passed would not stand as a nullity in its very inception. The subsequent development transforming the company as a non-sick industrial unit by bringing the company out of the bar under Section 22 of the SICA, 1985, would validate the decree passed by both the courts below being not a nullity in its very inception. The decree is only a voidable one, capable of getting legal sanctity by a subsequent development.

16. Section 22 of the SICA,1985 is not a complete bar ousting jurisdiction of Civil Court but it is only a partial bar demanding compliance of certain requirement that no suit shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the board or as the case may be, the appellate authority. When there is non compliance of the said requirement, the proceedings and everything attached to it and even the right to sue would stand as suspended by virtue of operation of Section 22(3) of the Act. The effect of cessation of declaration also dealt with under clause (b) of Sub Section (4) to Section 22 that:-

(i) any right, privilege, obligation or liability so remaining suspended or modified, shall become revived and enforceable as if the declaration had never been made, and

(ii) any proceeding so remaining stayed shall be proceeded with, subject to the provisions of any law which may then be in force, from the stage which had been reached when the proceedings became stayed.

17. The period in which the suspension was in force under Section 22(3) was allowed to be excluded in the enforcement of any right, privilege, obligation or liability in the computation of period of limitation under Sub section (5) to Section 22 of the SICA, 1985. This would show that there is a partial statutory restraint/partial statutory bar alone included under Section 22 of SICA,1985 and on cessation of the suspension, “all the right, privilege, obligation or liability so suspended or modified shall become revived and enforceable, as if the declaration had never been made.” It further permits to proceed with the proceedings on cessation of declaration/suspension from the stage, it was stopped or suspended. In the instant case admittedly the company was revived as a non sick industry and hence the declaration made under subsection (3) would stand as terminating the suspension of proceedings. The suit instituted and the decree passed by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, during the pendency of the scheme under Section 17 of the Act would revive and become valid on termination of the suspension, as there is only a partial bar of the jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 22 of the SICA,1985.

18. A 3 Judge Bench of Apex Court in Reheja Universal Limited v. NRC Limited and Others (2012 (4) Supreme Court Cases 148) had considered the scope and legal impact of debarring provision, Section 22 read with section 16 and 17 of SICA, 1985, and laid down the legal position in Paragraph 26 of judgment, which is extracted below for reference:

“26. This Court, while dealing with the scope of Section 22 read with Section 16 and 17 of SICA 1985, took the view that all proceedings for execution, distress

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

or the like against the properties of the company would automatically be suspended and could not continue without the consent of BIFR. This Court held as under: [Gram Panchayat case, (1990) 2 SCC 440) paras 10-11] “10. In the light of the steps taken by the Board under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act, no proceedings for execution, distress or the like proceedings against any of the properties of the company shall lie or be proceeded with further except with the consent of the Board. Indeed, there would be automatic suspension of such proceedings against the company's properties. As soon as the inquiry under Section 16 is ordered by the Board, the various proceedings set out under Sub section (1) of Section 22 would be deemed to have been suspended. 11. It may be against the principles of equity if the creditors are not allowed to recover their dues from the company, but such creditors may approach the Board for permission to proceed against the company for the recovery of their dues/outstanding/overdues or arrears by whatever name it is called. The Board at its discretion may accord its approval for proceeding against the company. If the approval is not granted, the remedy is not extinguished. It is only postponed. Subsection (5) of Section 22 provides for exclusion of the period during which the remedy is suspended while computing the period of limitation for recovering the dues” (Emphasis supplied) 19. The Division Bench decision relied on by the appellant in Hameed v. Ittoop (1970 KLT 501) is really standing on a different footing dealing with the prohibitory clause under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1965. It is only a statutory prohibition against initiating a proceeding within a particular period and not dealing with ouster of jurisdiction. The substantial questions involved are answered accordingly. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails,dismissed. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-09-2020 Meharaj @ Meharaj Begum Versus State by K.G. Halli P.S., Rep. by Government Pleader High Court of Karnataka
20-08-2020 A. Abdul Subhan Versus The Director General (High Ways), PWD Complex, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2020 K.G. Ravikiran Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka
23-07-2020 Syed Hidayath @ Chotu Dubbel Versus State by KG Halli PS Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
20-07-2020 M/s. Maa Sarala Multipurpose Cooperative Limited Versus Steel Authority of India & Another High Court of Orissa
12-06-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Punnam Chander complex, Chowrastha, Hanmkonda, Warangal Versus Sangeraboina Uppalaiah & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-06-2020 K.G. Purushothaman Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Local Self Government Institution, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
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
19-05-2020 Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath (JSP), Represented TY Adarsh R. Iyer Versus Chairperson, Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-05-2020 Jackie Kukubhai Shroff Versus Ratnam Sudesh Iyer High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-04-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus State Tradings Corporation Of India Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
30-03-2020 Dr. A.E. Chelliah, Senior Advocate Versus The Chairman & Members of the Bar Council of Tamizh Naadu & Puducherry Represented by its Secretary High Court Complex, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-03-2020 Suresh Chandra Das Versus The State of Tripura to be represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Secretariat Complex, West Tripura & Another High Court of Tripura
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
26-02-2020 Malik Bin Deenar Islamic Complex, Rep. by Its President Versus Kaipamangalam Grama Panchayat, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Another High Court of Kerala
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
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 M/s. Nisa Maternity Hospital & Another Versus DM Ho, Municipal Complex, Hyd & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-02-2020 K.G. Shiju, Junior Health Inspector Gr.II, Primary Health Centre, Velom, Kozhikode Versus The Secretary to Government, Health & Family Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
30-01-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
22-01-2020 Suresh Babu Versus The District Registrar,(Administration) Registration Department Integrated Complex, Arakonam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-01-2020 M/s. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Versus Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd. High Court of Jharkhand
10-01-2020 The Central Board of Excise & Customs, Rep. by its Chairman, New Delhi & Others Versus M/s. K.G. Denim Limited, (Rep. by V. Arulanandham, Dy. General Manager), Mettupalayam 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
02-01-2020 J.N. Lakshminarayanan & Others Versus Sankara Narasimha Iyer & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-12-2019 Ananthakrishnan Versus K.G. Rangasamy, K.G. Ramasamy & Co., by its partner, K.G.R. Sekar & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-12-2019 A.K. Bhaskaran Versus K.G. Sheeba & Another High Court of Kerala
18-12-2019 Krishna Mahadevan @ Mahadevan, Hiruvananthapuram, Represented by Power of Attorney Holder, M. Krishna Iyer Versus K.R. Moniamma & Others High Court of Kerala
16-12-2019 Selva's Steel Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Parimalam Complex, Eroad Versus Madhammal & Others 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
25-11-2019 K. Rasheeth Ali Versus The Commissioner of Treasury & Accounts, Integrated Office Complex for Finance Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2019 A.K. Vijayalakshmi & Another Versus Indian Bank, Gee Gee Complex & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-11-2019 B. Basappa & Another Versus J.S.W. Steel Ltd., Bellary High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
06-11-2019 K.G. Balachandar Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs - PERS II, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-11-2019 K.G. Seshadri Versus The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 The State of Kerala Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthauram & Others Versus Dr. K.G. Suresh, Pathanamthitta High Court of Kerala
24-10-2019 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus Arun Kumar Jagatramka National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
22-10-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited Central Marketing Organization Through Assistant General Manager (Marketing) Regional Office, Maharashtra Versus Lalit Agrawal & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-10-2019 Vanit Gupta & Another Versus Delta Iron & Steel Company P. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-10-2019 JSW Steel Ltd. Versus Mahender Kumar Khandelwal & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
01-10-2019 Ravi Rangnathan Iyer & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-09-2019 K. Krithika, Daughter of Kumar, Represented by her Natural Guardian Father Kumar Versus The District Collector, I - Floor, New Revenue Complex, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-09-2019 M/S. K.G. Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dr. Monojit Kulabhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-09-2019 Kamal Mitra Versus M/s. K.G. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-09-2019 Anjaneyaswamy Temple, K.G. Jayasheelan Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
05-09-2019 M. Mary Kala Jayanthi Versus Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Allikulam Complex, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-09-2019 M/s. S.S. Steel Industry Versus M/s. Shri Guru Hargobind Steels High Court of Delhi
28-08-2019 K.G. Krishnasamy @ Appu, Represented by K. Sarath Versus State by Inspector of Police, Vishnu Kanchi Police, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2019 Mahendra Jayantilal Vora & Others Versus Vasant Complex Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-08-2019 Dr. Vidyaa Hari Iyer Versus M/s. Metallic Bellows India Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director Padma Ramesh High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2019 Ramesh Kumar Vishwakarma & Others Versus Steel Authority of India Limited Through Its Managing Director, Bhilai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-08-2019 S. Girija Kumar, Higher Secondary School Teacher (Physics), Amrita Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Kollam & Others Versus K.G. Rajitha & Others High Court of Kerala
02-08-2019 Asim Shariff Versus State by NIA Hyderabad, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor High Court Complex, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
01-08-2019 M/S Mamta Steel India Pvt. Ltd. Peepur Amethi Throu, Director & Another Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Civil Lines Allahabad High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
31-07-2019 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Exalt Service Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-07-2019 M. Maheswari Versus The Regional Executive Director, Airport Authority of India, Southern Region, AAI Operational Officer Complex, Chennai Airport, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-07-2019 M/s. KG Foundations (P) Limited, Rep.by its Director Haresh Kishor Versus M/s. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director S. Sivaramakrishnan High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 S. Anilkumar & Others Versus K.G. Giriprasad & 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
10-07-2019 M/s. NAPC Limited, Royapettah & Another Versus The Superintending Engineer, National Highways, TNSCC Complex, Jai Nagar, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2019 D.J. De Souza Versus Khadi Gramudyog Complex & Another Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panaji
05-07-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited & Another Versus Jaggu & Others Supreme Court of India
05-07-2019 The Director, Steel Authority of India Limited Versus Ispat Khandan Janta Mazdoor Union Supreme Court of India
25-06-2019 Income Tax Officer -1 Mahanadi Complex, Chhattisgarh Versus Kamala Ojha High Court of Chhattisgarh
20-06-2019 Pichai Iyer & Others Versus K. Subramanian Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
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
10-06-2019 Tabbarak Pasha & Others Versus State of Karnataka by K.G. Halli Police Station, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
03-06-2019 Kiran Murali & Another Versus Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., (A Company incorporate under the Companies Act, 1956) Having its Office at Softward Technology Park, Electronics Complex, Madhya Pradesh & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-05-2019 Spiegel Verlag Rudolf Augstein GMBH & Co. KG VersusGovt. of NCT of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
13-05-2019 Adwaita Prasad Biswal Versus Rourkela Steel Plant High Court of Orissa
09-05-2019 Nayaagarh Sugar Complex Limited Versus SBI General Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-05-2019 Nayaagarh Sugar Complex Limited Versus SBI General Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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. Indus Steel & Alloys Ltd. Represented by its Director S.S. Srikanth & Others Versus D. Venkatesh Guptha & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-05-2019 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Supreme Court of India
01-05-2019 In the matter of : M/s. Global Supply chain Solutions Private Limited & Another Versus Registrar of Companies, IIIrd Floor, 'A' Block, Sanjay Complex, Jayendraganj Gwalior (M.P.) National Company Law Tribunal Ahmedabad
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
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
16-04-2019 Dr. K.G. Senthilvasan Versus The Registrar (i/c), Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2019 M/s. K.G. Denim Finance Limited, Coimbatore Represented by D. Ramesh Versus M/s. Salem Textiles Limited, Rep by R. Prabakaran, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Commissioner of Customs (Air), Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakam Versus M/s. Wipro Ltd., Bangalore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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