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



M/s. Usha International Ltd., Represented by its Chief Operating Officer, Haryana v/s Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- USHA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210DL1935PLC007123

Company & Directors' Information:- USHA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB1996PLC078796

Company & Directors' Information:- USHA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = L74899DL1954PLC002985

Company & Directors' Information:- A & D INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36109RJ2007PTC024176

Company & Directors' Information:- L T INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1999PLC097892

Company & Directors' Information:- A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102GJ2008PTC053840

Company & Directors' Information:- T. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL1997PTC091049

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066228

Company & Directors' Information:- C & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1982PTC026718

Company & Directors' Information:- O P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U55101PB2013PTC037499

    W.P. No. 8124 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013

    Decided On, 30 October 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR.(MRS.) JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

    For the Petitioner: R. Parthasarathy, Advocate. For the Respondents: V. Sundareswaran, Senior Panel Counsel.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order no.1/2013-Cus dated 20.02.2013 passed by the 1st Respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to recall and rehear the application filed by the Petitioner, for settlement under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 by providing the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.)

1. The petitioner had filed an application for settlement in terms of Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short 'Act'). The application was received by the Settlement Commission (in short Commission/SC) and numbered. A notice was issued on 07.02.2013 prior to listing of the application in terms of Section 127C(1) of the Act for admission/hearing thereof, raising various queries for response by the petitioner. One of the queries raised related to whether there was any case pending in the Appellate Tribunal or Court which would act as a bar to maintainability of the application in terms of the second proviso to Section 127B.

2.The petitioner filed a reply dated 15.02.2013 reiterating that the application was maintainable and praying that it may be proceeded with on merits, specifically reiterating at para-11 that there was no case pertaining to the show cause notice at issue, pending in the CESTAT or before any Court.

3.Notwithstanding the reply filed, the impugned order has come to be passed even without hearing the petitioner, simply rejecting the application as non-maintainable, invoking the second proviso to Section 127B of the Act.

4.Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

5.Section 127B of the Act, including the second proviso thereto, reads as follows:

'Section 127B. Application for settlement of cases. - (1) Any importer, exporter or any other person (hereinafter referred to as the applicant in this Chapter) may, in respect of a case, relating to him make an application, before adjudication to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled, in such form and in such manner as may be specified by rules, and containing a full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the proper officer, the manner in which such liability has been incurred, the additional amount of customs duty accepted to be payable by him and such other particulars as may be specified by rules including the particulars of such dutiable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of misclassification, under-valuation or inapplicability of exemption notification [or otherwise] and such application shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided :

PROVIDED that no such application shall be made unless,-

. . . . :

PROVIDED ALSO that no application under this sub-section shall be made in relation to goods to which section 123 applies or to goods in relation to which any offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been committed :

. . . .

6. Section 127B relates to an application for settlement of cases and sets out three bars for entertaining of an application by the Commission, the second, and the one relevant to this case, being the pendency of any cases before the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.

7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the application of the second proviso is only to those cases which relate to an assessment of duty and interest, pending either before the Customs Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) or any other Court. Thus, the pendency of proceedings for prosecution, should not, according to him, be construed as a bar to the maintainability of an application for settlement.

8. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the proviso should be read literally so as to cover both cases of assessment as well as of prosecution.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent also tentatively states that there has been non-disclosure of pendency of proceedings for prosecution before the Special CBI Court, before the Commission. However, at paragraph-20 of the settlement application, the petitioner has made specific reference to the prosecution launched against the petitioner by the Central Bureau of Investigation in Special CBI Court, setting out various details in connection with the same. Thus there is no merit in the argument that the petitioner has approached the settlement commission without making a full and true disclosure in this regard. This argument is rejected.

10. On the legality of the contention itself, the petitioner relies on a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Settlement Commission, Bombay in the case of Shri Agarwal Trading Company (Appeal No.F.No.SC/WZ/CUS/38/Agarwal/2000, dated 19.2.2001), that had considered the admissibility of an application in the light of the bar contained in the first proviso to Section 127B at paragraphs-8 and 9 thereof, as follows:

'8. The terms “case is defined in Section 127A(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. “Case” means any proceeding under this Act or any other Act for the levy, assessment and collection of Customs duty, or any proceeding by way of appeal or a revision in connection with the levy, assessment or collection, which may be pending before the proper officer or (sic) Central Government on the date on which an application under sub-section (1) of Section 127B is made. In other words case relates to a proceeding and the proceeding is for the purposes of levy, assessment and collection of Customs duty. The second proviso to Section 127B(1) bars any application to be entertained by the Settlement Commission in cases which are pending with the Appellate Tribunal or any Court. Cases which are pending in this context is to be entertained as a proceedings for the levy, assessment and collection of Customs duty lying with Appellate Tribunal or any Court. In other words an application can be entertained by the Settlement Commission under Section 127B so long as there is no proceedings for the levy, assessment and collection pending with the Appellate Tribunal or any Court. That is to say that even if the proceedings for the prosecution have been instituted before the date of receipt of the application under Section 127B, yet the application can be entertained by the Settlement Commission.

9. A reading of Section 127H of Customs Act, 1962 would support the above arguments. Section 127H of Customs Act, 1962 gives the power to the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from prosecution for any offence under this Act or the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or under any other Central Act for the time being in force and such immunity may be either in whole or in part from the imposition of any penalty, fine and interest under this Act (Customs Act, 1962), with respect to the case covered by the settlement. This granting of immunity however, is left to the discretion of the Settlement Commission depending upon certain factors discussed in Section 127H. The Settlement Commission may or may not grant immunity from prosecution, penalty, fine and interest. The power to grant immunity from prosecution is relating to any offence committed under the Customs Act or under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or under any other Central Act for the time being in force. However, the power to grant immunity either wholly or in part from the imposition of any penalty, fine and interest is with reference to Customs Act only. The offence discussed in this section means an offence relating to the case covered by the settlement. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 127H ibid reads as below:

Provided that no such immunity shall be granted by the Settlement Commission in cases where the proceedings for prosecution for any such offence have been initiated before the date of receipt of the application under Section 127B.'

11. The Bench has proceeded to entertain the application based on the interpretation that the word 'case' utilised in the proviso should assume the same meaning as the definition of the word under the Customs Act 1962 which means 'any proceeding under this act or any other act for the levy, assessment and collection of customs duty' as contra distinguished from proceedings for prosecution. Further, the provisions of Section 127H of the Act empower the Commission to grant immunity to prosecution under either the Customs Act, the IPC or any other Central Act, in such cases where prosecution has not been instituted before the date of receipt of the Application for settlement by the Commission.

12. I prima facie agree with the rationa

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

le of the aforesaid order. Had the commission issued notice to the petitioner prior to hearing the matter, it would perhaps have been persuaded to adopt a reasoning similar to that of the Co-ordinate Bench, as above. However this has not been done. 13. The impugned order, in the light of the discussion above, is set aside. The petitioner will appear before the respondent on Thursday, the 14th of November 2019 at 10.30 a.m. No further notice need be issued in this regard. An order shall be passed by the Settlement Commission after hearing the petitioner on the question of maintainability, further proceedings being consequent upon the result of such order. It is made clear that none of the observations made in this order shall stand in the way of the Settlement Commission deciding the legal issue of maintainability, independently and in accordance with law. 14. This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
29-06-2020 Coromandel International Ltd. (Earlier Known As Coromandel Fertillisers Ltd.) Through its Authorized Representative, Vishakhapatnam & Others Versus Kamrubai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-06-2020 Union Bank of India, Punjab Versus Usha Arora & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 IRCON International Ltd. Versus M/s. Meumal Athwani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-06-2020 M/s. Angelique International Limited Versus Public Electricity Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
12-06-2020 Aberdeen Asia Pacific Including Japan Equity Fund Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1(1)(1) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-06-2020 Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Sri Vinayaka Caterors & Consultants, Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partners, K. Eshwar Versus The Executive Warden, International Hostels, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 The Manager, Devadar Aided Lower Primary School, Puliyil, Malappuram District Versus U. Usha & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-05-2020 Bhanumathy Usha & Others Versus The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram Branch, Represented by Its, Branch Head Susil Kaloor & Others High Court of Kerala
04-05-2020 Bhansali Productions Pvt.Ltd. Versus Eros International Medial Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2020 M/s. Inter Ads Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. Versus Busworld International Cooperatieve Vennootschap Met Beperkte Anasprakelijkheid High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. Versus Axiom Cordages Limited (Previously Known as Axion Impex International Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-04-2020 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, Having Registered Office at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory Nixon Varghese Versus Kannur International Airport Limited, Mattannur, Represented by Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 Dr. Rajesh Jhorawat Versus Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd. V/S Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-03-2020 M/s. Meyer Apparel Ltd. Versus M/s. Panchanan International Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
09-03-2020 K.V. Bijumon Versus Usha & Another High Court of Kerala
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-03-2020 A. Amutha Versus Usha Rani High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd. & Another Versus Banothu Rangamma & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
27-02-2020 Perfect Synergy Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sagar Infra Rail International Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
27-02-2020 M. Thirunavukarasu (Deceased) & Others Versus P. Usha Rani & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2020 Usha Jadhav & Another Versus Minister of Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 Saurabh Kar & Another Versus Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Finance Controller, TN Rajan & Another Versus Banothu Tharya & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
14-02-2020 APS Forex Services Private Limited Versus Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Others Supreme Court of India
12-02-2020 Usha Ananthasubramanian Versus Union of India Supreme Court of India
11-02-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus C.R. Sons Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
07-02-2020 Swastik Builders, Satyam Apartments Next to Rowell Continental (Sunny International) & Others Versus Dr. Shobha & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
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 N.V. Usha Versus Njarakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. High Court of Kerala
31-01-2020 Usha Ranjan Pattanayak Versus CPIO: UCO Bank, Circle Office Central Information Commission
30-01-2020 Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Others Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
27-01-2020 Hotel Soorya International, Represented by its Partner, S. Arumugam Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 M/s. DTT Financial Services (P) Ltd., Chennai, Represented by its Director, Usha Subramaniam Versus N. Uttam Kumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 M/s. IRCON International Limited, (A Government of India Undertaking), Rep. by its Joint General Manager(South), Bangalore Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintending Engineer(H), Villupuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-01-2020 Export Import Bank of India & Another Versus Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-01-2020 International Car and Motors Ltd. Versus Shyam Sundar Sen & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-01-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
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
08-01-2020 Usha Sridharan & Another Versus Radhakandan@Pappa & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Usha Devi Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
06-01-2020 Phoenix International Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
06-01-2020 M/s. Prime Gold International Limited, Represented by its Director Achin Aggarwal & Another Versus The Additional Director General, The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Coimbatore Zonal Unit, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-01-2020 HDFC Bank Limited V/S KPG International Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
03-01-2020 B.K. Usha Devi & Others V/S Punjab National Bank by its General Manager Head Office, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-12-2019 J. John Winfred Versus International Airport Authority of India Rep. By Airport Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 M/s. Saravana International, Rep. by its Proprietor C.R. Devanathan, Panruti Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panruti High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 Moets Catering Services Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Bindra Versus Dr. Ambedkar International Center & Others High Court of Delhi
06-12-2019 M/s. N.V. International Versus State of Assam & Others Supreme Court of India
06-12-2019 Tuli International Through it is Partner, Neeraj Tuli Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Sh. A.K. Longai, Manager, Duly Contituted Attorney & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-11-2019 Shaji B. John, Kings International Ltd., Quilon & Others Versus The Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Cochin, Represented by Its Secretary, Dr. G. Santhanakrishnan High Court of Kerala
07-11-2019 SPT International & Finance Ltd. Versus Bank of Baroda & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-11-2019 Usha Devi & Others Versus The New India Insurance Company Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
31-10-2019 Usha Bai & Others Versus A/m.Angala Parameswari and Kasi Viswanathaswamy Temple Rep. by its Executive Officer, Choolai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-10-2019 M/s. EOS GmbH-India Branch, Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Prakasam Anand (Country Manager), Kolathur Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-10-2019 Head Legal, Gmr Hyd International Airport Ltd. Versus Registrar, Airports Economic Regulatory Appellate Tribunal 2 High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-10-2019 K.P.L. International Limited, Represented by it Senior Vice President, R.P. Mundra Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Saidapet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2019 M.L. Kumawat & Another Versus Bharat Bio Tech International Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-09-2019 Latha Ilangovan Versus Usha Rajaram & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-09-2019 Chennai Port Trust Versus Chennai International Terminals Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 Ajit Ravi Versus Cochin International Airport Ltd. High Court of Kerala
20-09-2019 International Society for Krishna Consciousness Versus Ishwari Prasad Singh Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-09-2019 Dharam Vir & Others Versus BGS International Public School & Others High Court of Delhi
18-09-2019 The Management of M/s. International Travel House Limited, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-09-2019 Usha Gupta & Another Versus Bank of India & Another High Court of Delhi
05-09-2019 Neety Gupta Versus Usha Gupta & Others High Court of Delhi
03-09-2019 Dr. Usha Mishra Versus State of MP. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
29-08-2019 M/s. Kadimi International Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited High Court of Delhi
29-08-2019 Rajesh Kumar Versus Usha High Court of Punjab and Haryana
27-08-2019 Yun Zhang & Others Versus Sealegs International Limited Court of Appeal of New Zealand
27-08-2019 Central Board of Secondary Education, Application Branch, Shiksha Kendra, Delhi, Represented by its Secretary Versus Manager, Bethlehem International, Vazhakulam, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
19-08-2019 International Flavours & Fragrances India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Office of the Advocate General, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
09-08-2019 Glencore International AG Versus Indian Potash Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
07-08-2019 K. Mahendran, Trincomalee Versus Deutche Welle Radio and TV International, Colombo Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
07-08-2019 Sphere International, a proprietorship concern through its proprietor Rakesh Jalan Versus Ecopack India Paper Cup Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-08-2019 San International Business School, Rep.by its Chairman, T. Jayalakshmi Versus The Director, Centre for Affiliation of Institutions, Anna University, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2019 K.N. Raman Kutty Versus K.N. Usha High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-08-2019 Usha Gunvant Bari (Kolhe) & Others Versus Abdul Amir Sk. Lallu Khan & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-07-2019 M/s. Kuldip Singh Sethi & Gagan Goyal Versus Ecole Globale International Girls School High Court of Uttarakhand
29-07-2019 Bently Nevada LLC Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) (2), International Taxation & Another High Court of Delhi
23-07-2019 KAS International, Represented by its Proprietor, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Purasawalkam Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-07-2019 Star Health & Allied Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. & Corporate Office at Chennai, Represented by Its General Manager, Usha Chandrasekharan, Zonal Office, Thiruvananthapuram Versus S. Byju & Another High Court of Kerala
05-07-2019 M/s. Saravana International, Rep. by its Proprietor, C.R. Devanathan, Panruti Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panruti High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2019 Anand Institute of International Studies, Through Shrimati Arun Pal Anand(Prop/Director), Madhya Pradesh Versus Sani Jaggi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-06-2019 The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Public Works Department, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. GMP International GMBH of Hardenberg Strassee 4-5, Rep.by its Authorised Singatory Col.C. Jaisankar (Retd.) High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-06-2019 R. Mallika & Another Versus Expeditors International India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Supervisor in Accounts department Bharanidharan High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-06-2019 B. Usha & Others V/S S. Saradha (deceased during pendency of the suit) And Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-05-2019 Atakas Ticaret Ve Nakliyat As Versus Glencore International Ag Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
29-05-2019 Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Versus LMJ International Limited & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
16-05-2019 International Centre For Alternative Dispute Resolution Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
15-05-2019 R (on the application of Privacy International) Versus Investigatory Powers Tribunal & Others United Kingdom Supreme Court
14-05-2019 RUBFILA International Limited NIDA Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
10-05-2019 International Cycle Gears Versus The Controller of Patents & Designs & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta