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



M/s. Texcel International Pvt. Ltd., Sengundram Industrial Area (Near Ford India Ltd.,), Chengalpattu v/s M/s. Chennai Steel Tubes, Rep.by one of its Partner, G. Bhavanishankar


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

Company & Directors' Information:- X-ONE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999KA2017PTC104445

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

    A.S. No. 593 of 2017 & C.M.P. No. 20183 of 2017

    Decided On, 05 February 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

    For the Appellant: A.R. Nixon, Advocate. For the Respondent: M. Vijayanand, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 & Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Decree and Judgment dated 13.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.5298 of 2014 on the file of Learned XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. The appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.5298 of 2014.

2. The defendant is the appellant in the appeal suit and the respondent plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of money.

3. The brief facts as narrated in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are suppliers / dealers / agents of Steel tubes of various manufactures and are in the business for more than a decade and the Defendant is a customer and had purchased goods on various dates vide various invoices and as on 29.08.2012, there was an outstanding of Rs.7,07,781/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty one only) including invoice dues and penal amount. In fact, one of the defendant's employee namely Mr.Baskaran, AGM (Administration) had negotiation with the plaintiff and requested to come forward for an amicable settlement and put-forth to pay 75% of the amount and agreed to pay Rs.5,31,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs and thirty one thousand only) in spite of agreeing for Rs.5,31,000/-, the defendant had not cared even to settle the reduced sum of Rs.5,31,000/- in the regard several letters and e-mails were sent to the defendant and lastly, the defendant had received a reminder from the plaintiff in the month of December 2013. The plaintiff further stated that the defendant having failed to pay as per the amicable settlement, the defendant had lost the right of repaying the reduced sum of Rs.5,31,000/- and as such, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,07,781/- with its corresponding interest. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff sent a statement to the defendant and the same was received on 25.09.2012 by the defendant, as on that date the due was Rs.8,07,781/- and after the plaintiff received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.09.2012 and as of 28.02.2012, the total outstanding due is Rs.7,07,781/- that the defendant kept on neglecting the demands and did not pay the dues which they were legally liable. Therefore, a lawyer's notice was issued on 05.03.2014 to the defendant and the same was duly received by the defendant on 06.03.2014 and thereafter, no reply was given and in-fact, they called the plaintiff over telephone and agreed to pay the dues. The plaintiff states that inspite of receipt of the lawyer's notice and the defendant agreeing to pay the dues over telephone, till date the defendant had failed to make payment. The plaintiff has got no other alternative except to file this suit for recovery for the outstanding amount of Rs.7,07,781/- along with its corresponding interest till date of realization. That the total dues unpaid by the defendant is Rs.7,07,781/- as on 28.09.2012 and the interest @ 2% per month for the period from 28.09.2012 to August 2014 is Rs.3,25,565/- and the total outstanding amounts to Rs.10,33,345/- (Interest for 707781 @2% per month is Rs.14,155.62 rounded to 1155 per months) as on filing of suit. That the defendant has failed and neglected to pay the aforesaid dues to the plaintiff in spite repeated demands and notice. Hence, the suit is filed.

4. The appellant defendant disputed the contentions set out in the plaint and denied allegations in-toto.

5. The contentions of the written statement are that the defendant denied all the allegations contained in the plaint except those are specifically admitted herein and plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same alleged in the plaint. The defendant is the Chief Executive Officer of M/s.Texcel International Pvt. Ltd. He denied the averments contained in paras 3 to 10 and that there is no any due outstanding amount of Rs.7,07,781/- never received any reminder in the month of December 2013 never acknowledged any statement of accounts on 25.09.2012 and it is false, frivolous and vexatious stated in the plaint. By mere production of numerical number cannot taken into the account of principal amount and also mere production of documents cannot be considered as authentic document unless it is proved by evidence of law. The given invoices were neither delivered by the plaintiff or received by the defendant. It is made out only for the purpose of this suit. The plaintiff is not stated the dates, the number of invoices and the claiming amount categorically in the plaint. Further, the plaintiff never explained how he arrived the principal amount of Rs.7,07,781/- and interest portion. The amount claiming in the plaint is Rs.10,33,346/- and under the summon for judgment the claiming amount is Rs.62,929/-. The plaintiff is confused in claiming sum against the defendant. The defendant is claiming that suit amount without any proof. The maximum commercial transaction took place in between the plaintiff and defendant during the period 2010 only and the claiming sum is related to that effect. The plaintiff never raised any objections with regard to previous bills at any point of time, and hence it is barred by Limitation Act. The defendant never made any negotiations with the plaintiff through defendant's employee for Rs.5,31,000/- when the plaintiff is admitting for Rs.5,31,000/- as per para 3rd of plaint. Then, now the plaintiff has come forward to sue for sum of Rs.10,33,346/-. The defendant has paid full amount to the plaintiff and there is no any due amount against the plaintiff. When the principal amount is not accepted by the defendant, the claiming interest portion by the plaintiff is challengeable one and triable issue. The plaintiff has not come forward with clean hands before this Court. The interest portion in the suit is not maintainable under law and 6% of interest is applicable from the date of filing plaint till the date of realization of decree. The plaintiff has neither cause of action nor is entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the suit is to be dismissed.

6. The trial Court framed the issues;

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10,33,346/- with interest @ 24% p.a on Rs.7,07,781/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization?

(ii) To what relief?

7. On the plaintiff side, PW1 examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked. On the defendant side, no evidence let in and no document are marked.

8. Admittedly, the suit is for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.10,33,346/- with subsequent interest. The case of the plaintiff is a supplier / dealers / agents of Steel Tubes on various manufactures and he is in the business of more than a decade and the defendant is a customer and purchase of goods on various dates vide various invoices and as on 29.08.2012, there was an outstanding of Rs.7,07,781/- including the invoice and penal amount and after amicable settlement, the defendant agreed to pay Rs.5,31,000/- with this correspondent interest. But the defendant are not paid the above said amount and the plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice on 05.03.2014 and the same was received and even thereafter, the defendant had not paid the suit claim. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money.

9. The defendant argued before the trial Court that the invoice produced by the plaintiff are not authenticated documents and the invoice neither delivered by the plaintiff nor received by the defendant. The maximum commercial transaction took place in between the plaintiff and the defendant during the period of 2010 and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. Further, he argued that the purchase order dated 10.01.2012 and 24.01.2012 are paid by the defendants and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

10. The trial Court considered the documents as well as the evidences. On the side of the defendant, nobody was examined nor any document was filed. Therefore, the trial Court considered the documents as well as the evidence filed by the plaintiff side and made a finding that the invoices are marked as Ex.A1 series in this case through PW1, which starts from 01.04.2010 to 19.09.2012 and the lawyers notice was sent by the plaintiff counsel to the defendant on 05.03.2014, which was marked as Ex.A4. The suit was filed on 10.09.2014 within three years from the date of purchase order and invoice it has been marked as Ex.A1. Thus, the suit is not barred by limitation. Ex.A4 has been received by the defendant on 06.03.2014 and the postal acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.A5. However, the defendant had not send any reply to Ex.A4 i.e., in the lawyer's notice send by the plaintiff. The trial Court based on these evidences and documents arrived a finding that neither the defendant nor any independent witness examined on the side of the defendant to rebut the plaintiffs claim.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that except with reference to the two invoices, which are of the year 2012, all other invoices are old one and therefore, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the claim on the ground of limitation. Those invoices are also included in the plaint after a lapse of three years and therefore, the suit is hit by the law of limitation. In this regard, the trial Court found that the invoices are marked as Ex.A1 series in this case through PW1, which starts from 01.04.2010 to 19.09.2012 and the lawyers notice was sent by the plaintiff counsel to the defendant on 05.03.2014, which was marked as Ex.A4. The suit was filed on 10.09.2014 and therefore, it is within a period of three years from the date of purchase order and invoice, which is marked as Ex.A1.

12. Considering the fact that it is the series of invoices and the cause was continuing right from the year 2010 to 2012, the trial Court found that the suit is not barred by limitation as it is a continuing cause in view of the fact that the business was being carried out continuously by the party and various invoices are filed in Ex.A1 series.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. Noorjahan Beevi and another, reported in 2017(1) CTC 96, wherein the limitation for instituting the suit would commence from date of breach of agreement. Therefore, relying on the said judgment, the learned counsel is of an opinion that the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation.

14. This Court is of the considered opinion that as far as the facts and circumstances of the present case is concerned, it was a business transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant, which was established. The plaintiff and the defendant were having the continuous business transactions on various occasions and number of invoices are marked as documents as Ex.A1 series. This being the factum, this Court is of the opinion that it is a continuing cause and based on the last invoices of the year 2012, the suit was instituted on 10.09.2014 within a period of three years and therefore, the ground raised regarding the limitation deserve no merit consideration.

15. The learned counsel urged this Court by stating that the interest awarded by the trial Court is not in consonance with the settled principles as the date fixed for payment of interest i.e., 24.01.2012 is an imaginary one and the trial Court is not clear, on what basis, such a said date has been taken for ordering interest. This Court is of the considered opinion that regarding the award of interest, normally Courts follow the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter also, the interest is to be awarded. This apart, the award of 24% interest is undoubtedly exorbitant. However, the transaction being a business nature, an interest is to be awarded in a reasonable manner. This being the factum, interest portion alone is to be considered with reference to the appeal suit.

16. Perusal of Ex.A1 series, the purchase order dated 10.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.65,319.66 and the purchase order dated 24.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.2,10,958.18 are paid by the defendant and seal was affixed in the bill also. Thus, Rs.65,319.66 + Rs.2,10,958.18 = 2,76,277.84 has been paid by the defendant. The above said amount was to be deducted from the Principal amount of Rs.7,07,781/- and the same comes to Rs.4,31,503.16.

17. The trial Court rightly deducted the amount already paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and accordingly, arrived a conclusion that the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,31,503.16 to the plaintiff with subsequent interest of 24% from the date of 24.01.2012 to till the realization. Accordingly, the issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff and the decree was passed, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.4,31,503.16 with subsequent interest at 24% from the date of 24.01.2012 to till the realization to the plaintiff.

18. This Court is of the considered opinion that the defendant has not examined any witness nor filed any document to establish his case. Contrarily, the plaintiff could able to establish the business transactions as well as the invoices and the bills raised and establish the case f

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

or recovery of money. The amount paid by the defendant was also deducted by the trial Court and there is no infirmity or perversity as such in respect of the findings arrived. 19. This Court is of an opinion that awarding of 24% is exorbitant and the same deserves to be reduced. Accordingly, the rate of interest of 24% per annum ordered by the trial Court is modified as 12% per annum. Accordingly, the appellant defendant is directed to pay Rs.4,31,503.16 along with the interest at the rate of 12%(twelve percent) per annum from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter, 6%(six percent) per annum till the date of realisation. 20. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.2,15,752/- on 12.02.2018 pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. The respondents are permitted to withdraw the said amount with accrued interest by filing an appropriate application. The appellant is directed to pay the balance amount with interest to the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 21. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2017 passed in O.S.No 5298 of 2014 stands modified only in respect of the rate of interest fixed by the trial Court and in all other aspects, the judgment and decree stands confirmed. Consequently, A.S.No.593 of 2017 stands allowed in part. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

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
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
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
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 M/s. Salsar Wires Manufacturing (P) Ltd, Through One Of Its Directors Sandip Goel Versus State Of Jharkhand, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
13-01-2020 M/s. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Versus Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd. High Court of Jharkhand
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
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
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 Vanit Gupta & Another Versus Delta Iron & Steel Company P. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
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
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
15-07-2019 Store One Retail India Ltd. (Now known as Soril Infra Resources Ltd.) Versus I.T.C. Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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 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 The Chief Engineer/CN/South/Ms, Southern Railway, Chennai & Another Versus M/s. Rail One Projects Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by K. Kotiredddy, Managing Director 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
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 Bank One Limited Versus Directorate General of Civil Aviation & Others High Court of Delhi
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
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
05-04-2019 The Manager, Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd., One way Junction, Moovattupuzha, Ernakulam & Another Versus V.G. Soman Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
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
19-03-2019 MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S A & Another Versus BRG Iron & Steel Company Private Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-03-2019 N. Ramasamy Versus M/s Ortho One, Orthopedic Speciality Centre, Singanallur, Coimbatore & Others Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
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
28-02-2019 Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus M/s. Seaspray Shipping Co. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
27-02-2019 One Earth One Life (Reg.No.S.246/1988), Thrissur, Represented by Tony Thomas & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
25-02-2019 Punjab National Bank Versus Indian Steel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
14-01-2019 Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Sarvan Kumar High Court of Chhattisgarh
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
06-12-2018 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Versus M/s Global Steel Holding Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
04-12-2018 Mukut Phukan Proprietor / Owner of Steel & Grip Versus United Bank of India & Others High Court of Gauhati
29-11-2018 Sri Krishna Geo-Tech Service Thiruchenkodu, represented thro' its one of the partners K. Venkateswaran Versus Meenakshi (Died) & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-11-2018 Savan Godiawala, in his Capacity of Liquidator and on Behalf of Lanco Infratech Limited Versus Steel Authority of India Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
16-11-2018 The Asstt Commissioner of Income Versus The Jayesh Steel Pvt.Ltd Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad
15-11-2018 Mahindra Sanyo Special Steel Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Pradeen Salian Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary & Another High Court of Karnataka
14-11-2018 Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh Versus M/s. Arunachal Iron & Steel Fabrication & Chemical Processing Unit Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Regional Bench Kolkata
30-10-2018 Kongovi Private Limited [Formerly Known as Kongovi Electronics Private Limited], Rep. Herein by its Managing Director Sri Shrinivas Kongovi Versus TVS Motors Company Limited, Represented Herein by one of its Directors High Court of Karnataka
26-10-2018 M/s Steel Authority of India, Chhattisgarh Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Central Excise Bhawan, Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-10-2018 Trident Steel & Engineering Co. & Another Versus Vallourec, represented by its President-Philippe Crouzet & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-09-2018 M/s. Mountain Steel Pvt. Ltd Versus Ito, W-1(3), Chandiarh Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh
19-09-2018 M/s. Shree Mahalaxmi Steel Structure Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus CCE&ST, Raipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
18-09-2018 Mahalaxmi Steel Industries Versus C.C.E. Raipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
11-09-2018 M/s. Innovative Enterprises Versus M/s. Steel & Tubes Syndicate High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2018 The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Law Officer & Another Versus M/s. Rama Tubes Co., rep. By its Sri Maniklal Gulab Rai & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
05-09-2018 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Suresh Steel Tubes Pvt Ltd Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore
05-09-2018 Khem Chand (Now Deceased) through One of his Lrs. Versus Diwan Singh & Others High Court of Delhi
05-09-2018 M/s. Himadri Steel Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited High Court of Jharkhand
31-08-2018 Prabhat Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Excel Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-08-2018 OPG Iron & Steel Private Limited Versus NTPC Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-08-2018 Mother Boon Foods Pvt. Ltd. Versus Mindscape One Marketing Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
08-08-2018 M/s. Bhagwati Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad through one of its Directors, Shyam Kishore Prasad & Another Versus The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Aurangabad & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
02-08-2018 Bhavana Steel, Mumbai Versus Income Tax Officer 19 (1) (2) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai
31-07-2018 M/s. Century Steel Traders, through its Proprietor, Rajiv Shivji Sharma Versus M/s. Polaris Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. Through its Directors - Pushpendra Pramodkumar Mishra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
23-07-2018 Tayyab Hussain Versus Steel Authority of India & Others High Court of Delhi
18-07-2018 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore & Another Versus M/s. Capital One Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
18-07-2018 Garg Tubes Ltd V/S Commissioner, Central Excise, Ghaziabad Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
17-07-2018 One Mobikwik Systems Private Limited Versus Vipul Sharma & Others Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
12-07-2018 Sahara One Media & Entertainment Ltd V/S Commissioner of Customs (II), (Air Special Cargo), Mumbai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai