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



M/s. Wan Hai Lines (Singapore) Pte Ltd. IC, Rep. by its Agent M/s. Wan Hai Lines (India) Pvt Ltd., Chennai & Others v/s Tionale Pte Ltd., Rep. by its Power of Attorney Agent, P. Barathiraj & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- U. P. POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32201UP1999SGC024928

Company & Directors' Information:- D B POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109MP2006PLC019008

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40105WB1919PLC003263

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U40101WB2003PLC097340

Company & Directors' Information:- L V S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100TG1996PTC023552

Company & Directors' Information:- S L S POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109AP2005PLC047008

Company & Directors' Information:- S L V POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40102KA2002PTC030448

Company & Directors' Information:- S. E. POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40106GJ2010PLC091880

Company & Directors' Information:- D C POWER LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40109TG1996PLC025996

Company & Directors' Information:- I T T LINES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U61100AN2005PTC000075

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U50101WB1997PLC084060

Company & Directors' Information:- B V POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40106DL2011PTC213428

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND H POWER COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109UP1965PTC003067

Company & Directors' Information:- IC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2013PTC069844

Company & Directors' Information:- B R POWER LTD [Active] CIN = U40106WB1995PLC073567

Company & Directors' Information:- P R B POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101TG1995PTC020647

Company & Directors' Information:- S V G POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40300AP2012PTC084435

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31900DL1995PTC070096

Company & Directors' Information:- M POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31908MH2012PTC234343

Company & Directors' Information:- A N S INDIA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101DL2014PTC266873

Company & Directors' Information:- D T POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40300AP2015PTC097226

Company & Directors' Information:- G S POWER LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40102KA2010PLC054033

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER AND POWER PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U31300AS1989PTC003282

Company & Directors' Information:- P D M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40104AS2014PTC011780

Company & Directors' Information:- B & G POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40105PB2010PLC033765

Company & Directors' Information:- S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19202DL1986PTC026505

Company & Directors' Information:- G M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40105PN2003PTC017857

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31102WB1983PTC036315

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109PY2004PTC001824

Company & Directors' Information:- PTE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25209MH2001PTC132898

Company & Directors' Information:- T. S. LINES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900MH2008PTC180466

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND H LINES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U63011TZ2004PTC011231

Company & Directors' Information:- K P M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40102KA2008PTC046804

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER-X PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1970PTC005331

Company & Directors' Information:- S K POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31101KA2006PTC039172

Company & Directors' Information:- R G D POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U41000TG1996PTC023809

Company & Directors' Information:- M M R POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31104DL2008PTC174079

Company & Directors' Information:- S J POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45207HR2012PTC045937

Company & Directors' Information:- T C POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101PB2009PTC033405

Company & Directors' Information:- H. & T. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40106MH2016PTC287646

Company & Directors' Information:- S & O POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40107MH2010PTC206447

Company & Directors' Information:- V D M-POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC262999

Company & Directors' Information:- W N POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101JK2013PTC004009

Company & Directors' Information:- G C I POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40107KA2010PTC053656

Company & Directors' Information:- R. C. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40100GJ2009PTC058005

Company & Directors' Information:- D V N POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101TG2007PTC053069

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2007PTC161616

    Original Side Appeal Nos. 154 & 155 of 2020 & C.M.P. Nos. 7804, 7805 & 7806 of 2020

    Decided On, 05 August 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

    For the Appellant: P. Giridharan, Advocate. For the Respondents: E. Om Prakash, Senior Advocate, P. Neelakandan, Menon, Advocates.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: OSA No. 154 of 2020: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the amended Letters Patent, 1865 and read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 against the order dated 01.07.2020 passed in Application No. 1346 of 2020 in CS (Comm.Div) No.148 of 2020 on the file of this Court.

OSA No. 155 of 2020: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the amended Letters Patent, 1865 and read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 against the order dated 01.07.2020 passed in O.A. No. 211 of 2020 in CS (Comm.Div) No.148 of 2020 on the file of this Court.)

Common Judgment

R. Subbiah, J.

1. Both these Original Side Appeals have been filed by the third defendant in the suit in C.S. (Comm.Div) No. 148 of 2020 on the file of this Court challenging the Order dated 01.07.2020 passed in Application No. 1346 of 2020 in CS (Comm.Div) No.148 of 2020 and O.A. No. 211 of 2020 in CS (Comm.Div) No.148 of 2020 passed by the learned single Judge. The said suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff herein seeking the following reliefs:-

“The Plaintiff therefore prays for a Judgment and Decree, jointly and severally against the defendants 1 to 3 herein:

(a) Declaring that the Plaintiff being the lawful owner of the said goods morefully described in the Schedule hereto is entitled to have delivery of the same in terms of the contract of carriage upon payment of USD 4380 equivalent to Rs.3,36,165 (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Five Only)

(b) Grant a Mandatory injunction directing Defendant No.1 and/or Defendant No.2 to handover to the plaintiff the original Ocean Bills of Lading Nos. 030A501777, 030A501774, 030A502070, 025A513190 pertaining to the said Goods described in the Schedule, upon receipt of the agreed freight of USD 4380 equivalent to Rs.3,36,165 (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Five Only)

And/or in the Alternative,

Direct Defendant No.3 and its agents at Chennai, Tuticorin and Cochin ports to transfer the said Goods covered under the Ocean Bills of Lading Nos. 030A501777, 030A501774, 030A502070, 025A513190 and morefully described in the Schedule hereunder to a Customs Bonded Warehouse specified by this Honourable Court and permit the plaintiff to take delivery of the said goods upon payment of the agreed freight of USD 4380 equivalent to Rs.3,36,165 (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Five Only)

(c) Permanent injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, jointly and severally, including their men, employees and agents, from selling, transferring, alienating, encumbering, disposing of or in any other manner dealing with the said Goods covered under the Ocean Bills of Lading Nos. 030A501777, 030A501774, 030A502070, 025A513190 and morefully described in the Schedule hereunder,

(d) Permanent injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, jointly and severally, from levying any demurrage/detention charges in respect of the said Goods described in the schedule hereto

(e) To direct the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, jointly and severally, to pay costs of the Suit to the plaintiff; and

(f) pass such further or other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to these appeals shall be referred to as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendants’ as arrayed in the suit.

3. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff is a trading company in Singapore and engaged in the business of buying and selling 100% Polyethylene Terepthalate, commonly abbreviated as PET, which is used as a raw material for manufacturing plastic containers. During the course of such business, the plaintiff purchased 550 metric tonne of PET Resin from M/s. Hainan Yisheng Petrochemical Company Limited, China by paying the full sale price of USD 437250. Such transaction between the plaintiff and M/s. Hainan Yisheng Petrochemical Company Limited, China was on F.O.B. basis that is free on Board basis under which the Seller will be relieved of the responsibility once the goods are shipped/boarded on the vessel. It is stated in the plaint that as the plaintiff had paid the entire sale price, they have became the absolute owner of the entire goods. On 05.02.2020, the plaintiff has entered into a sale contract with the defendants 7 to 9 on “Cost, Insurance, Freight” (CIF) basis viz., the risk of goods will be with the plaintiff till delivery is effected to the purchasers/defendants 7 to 9. For the purpose of transporting the cargo, the plaintiff approached the first defendant, a freight forwarder to transport the goods by Sea from China to India. By an e-mail dated 06.02.2020, the first defendant also confirmed that the freight charges payable was USD 365 per container and requested the plaintiff to contact the second defendant, a Non Vessel Owning Common Carrier (NVOCC). Accordingly, the plaintiff contacted the second defendant and thereafter informed the Seller M/s. Hainan to arrange for shipment of the goods through the second defendant. Accordingly, the seller delivered the goods for transit and the same was stuffed in containers and carried by the appellant/third defendant in their vessel. The appellant/third defendant also issued four Ocean Bills of Lading dated 21.02.2020, 22.02.2020, 22.02.2020 and 28.02.2020 indicating the name of the plaintiff as shipper. As per the trade practice, the Original Bills of Lading have been handed over by the defendant No.3 to the defendant No.2 who in turn had issued House Bills of Lading dated 22.02.2020 and 28.02.2020 on “Freight Collect” basis. The Plaintiff was required to apply to the defendant No.1 for obtaining delivery of the goods and the defendant No.1 has to collect the original Bills of Lading from the defendant No.2 and handover the same to the plaintiff, upon payment of the agreed freight charges of USD 365 per container. It is stated that the vessel carrying the goods arrived at the Port of Chennai on 11.03.2020, the port of Tuticorin on 11.03.2020 and the port of Cochin on 04.03.2020 and 14.03.2020 respectively. It is also stated that the freight agreed to be paid by the plaintiff is USD 365 per container and the total freight charges works out to USD 4380, which the plaintiff is always ready and willing to pay. However, for the reasons best known, the first defendant did not furnish the original Bills of Lading on the ground that the first defendant is having certain dispute with the second defendant over which the plaintiff is no way connected. Due to non-receipt of the original Bills of Lading, the plaintiff could not take delivery of the goods. On the other hand, the purchasers, defendants 7 to 9 are pressurizing the plaintiff to honour the contractual obligation. Further, for the delay in clearing the cargo beyond 14 days, the defendant No.3 carrier and port authorities also charge demurrage and/or detention charges at USD 150 plus 18% service tax, per day. Due to the delay and breach of contract on the part of the defendants 1 to 3 in failing to furnish the original Bills of Lading, the plaintiff was made to suffer immensely. The Plaintiff is always ready and willing to pay the admitted freight charge of USD 4380 but due to the dispute between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, the goods were unnecessarily withheld in the port whereby the plaintiff was made to suffer. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief stated supra.

4. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed applications in O.A. No. 211 of 2020 for an interim direction and O.A. No. 1346 of 2020 in C.S. No. 148 of 2020 for interim injunction. When the aforesaid applications came up for hearing on 05.06.2020, the learned single Judge observed that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and therefore entitled for grant of an interim order. Accordingly, by the order dated 05.06.2020, the learned single Judge granted an interim direction directing the appellant/defendant No.3 and its agents at Chennai, Tuticorin and Cochin Ports to transfer the goods covered in the Ocean Bills of Lading Nos. 030A501777, 030A501774, 030A502070, 025A513190 to a customs bonded warehouse in the port location, on condition the plaintiff deposits the freight charge for a sum equivalent to USD 4380 before any nationalised bank and also restrained the defendants 1 to 3 from alienating or disposing the goods covered under the aforesaid Ocean Bills of Lading. By a separate order, the learned single Judge also granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from alienating or selling the goods in question to any third party.

5. Subsequently, when the applications came up for hearing before this Court on 01.07.2020, the plaintiff contended that despite the order dated 05.06.2020, the appellant/defendant No.3 did not transfer the goods to a customs bonded warehouse. The learned single Judge, by the order dated 01.07.2020, directed the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the credit of the suit within a period of one week. On such deposit and in the event of the defendants 7 to 9/purchasers paying the customs duty to the exporter for clearance of the goods, the appellant shall ensure that the goods are transferred. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 01.07.2020, the appellant/ third defendant has come up with these appeals.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the appellant cannot warehouse the goods beyond 14 days within which period the plaintiff ought to have taken delivery of the goods. Further, the appellant is only a Sea Carrier and it is not the duty of the appellant to transfer the goods to a customs bonded warehouse. It is also contended that the delivery of the goods cannot be effected without the plaintiff/first respondent paying the sum of Rs.43,28,430.40 as on 25.06.2020 towards detention charges. However, the learned single Judge erred in observing that the payment of Rs.43,28,430.40 is a matter to be decided at the time of trial. According to the counsel for the appellants, the appellant has a lien over the goods for the amount payable by the first respondent/plaintiff and therefore he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the learned single Judge.

7. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel for the first respondent/ plaintiff would contend that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to take delivery of the goods soon after the goods reached the respective ports. However, the defendants 1 to 3 did not handover the Bills of Lading without which the plaintiff was unable to take the delivery of the goods. Further the delay, if at all, is due to the present lockdown to arrest the spread of the Pandemic and therefore, the delay cannot be attributed towards the plaintiff. In any event, the learned Senior counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would contend that the plaintiff is not liable to pay a sum of Rs.43,28,430.40 as on 25.06.2020 towards detention charges, as claimed by the appellants when there is no delay on their part in clearing the goods.

8. We have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. At the outset, we have to observe that the second defendant in the suit, who is presently holding the bills of lading, did not appear before this Court to contest this appeal. The appeal is contested only by the first respondent/plaintiff. We also wish to observe that the goods in question have reached the Port of Chennai on 11.03.2020, the port of Tuticorin on 11.03.2020 and the port of Cochin on 04.03.2020 and 14.03.2020 respectively. From that date, the goods are lying idle without being cleared inter alia requiring retention charges payable for clearance of the goods. As far as the dispute in the present appeals is concerned, the plaintiff would contend that it is always ready to pay the agreed freight charges but it was the defendants 1 to 2 who have failed to handover the respective Bills of Lading to the consignee notified in the respective Bills of Lading by the plaintiff due to which the goods were not handed over to defendants 7 to 9. On the other hand, the contention of the appellant/third defendant is that neither the plaintiff nor the purchasers/defendants 7 to 9 were not in possession of the original Bills of lading and therefore they cannot claim title over the goods and consequently, the appellant cannot transfer the goods in their favour.

9. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of the goods in question as is evident from various documents filed along with the plaint, including the bills of lading in which the name of the plaintiff is prominently indicated as the Shipper. The title of the plaintiff is also not specifically disputed by the appellant. But what is disputed by the appellant is that the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs.43,28,430.40 as on 25.06.2020 towards detention charges without which the appellant cannot clear the goods. It is submitted that the appellant is entitled to auction the goods under Section 148 of the Customs Act. The appellant-plaintiff has submitted that to deliver the imported goods without the originals of the respective Bills of Lading would expose to the appellant to a risk of third party claim by the 2nd defendant on a future date. However, the 2nd defendant is not before us. In our view, the 2nd defendant is entitled to receive freight which the appellant has deposited to the credit of the suit pursuant to an order dated 05.06.2020. Having regard to the above, we are of the view that the learned single Judge has rightly observed that the liability of the plaintiff to the pay Rs.43,28,430.40 as on 25.06.2020 towards detention charges is a disputed question and has to be decided only in the course of trial in the suit. The learned single Judge has directed the appellant to pay Rs.10 lakhs to the credit of the suit. The imported consignment is still within

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the bounds of Customs Department in a customs warehouse. The defendants 7 to 9 may clear of the imported goods on payment of the appropriate customs duty. In our opinion, the order passed by the learned single Judge needs no interference except for the amount directed to be deposited by the plaintiff. We are therefore of the view that having regard to the quantum of dispute raised by the appellant/third defendant towards detention charges payable by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.43,28,430.40 as on 25.06.2020, the plaintiff shall deposit a further sum of Rs.10 lakhs, over and above the sum of Rs.10 lakhs directed to be deposited by the learned single Judge, which will meet the ends of justice. Such amount shall be paid by the plaintiff without prejudice to their rights. Accordingly, we direct the first respondent/plaintiff herein to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs over and above the sum of Rs.10 lakhs directed to be deposited by the learned single Judge, to the credit of the suit, forthwith. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant/third defendant submitted that for the loss sustained by the appellant/third defendant due to the acts of the first respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/third defendant is entitled to raise a counter claim. Therefore, liberty is given to the appellant/ third defendant to raise a counter claim against the plaintiff/first respondent, if they are so advised. 11. Accordingly, we dismiss both the Original Side Appeals filed by the appellant. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

25-09-2020 Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Versus Hindustan Construction Company Limited High Court of Delhi
23-09-2020 Nagalakshmi (died) & Another Versus Sivaprakasam, Rep.by his Power Agent and his wife Senthamil Selvi High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Heer A. Rajani, Rep. by her Power of Attorney Amit M. Rajani Versus M.M. Syed Sikkander, Proprietor: M/s. Syed Bearing Centre, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
14-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its President, Kanchipuram Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its Senior Manager(Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 M/s. Khushee Construction through its Power of Attorney Holder, Patna Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
27-08-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
21-08-2020 K.S. Dileep Kumar, Represented by the Power of Attorney holder, brother, K.S. Dipesh Versus Anjana Gopinath & Another High Court of Kerala
19-08-2020 Chairman-Cum M.D., Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Tripathi & Others Versus T. Rajeswari & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 M/s. Pioneer Power Ltd, Rep. by its Chief General Manager, Therkukattur Village, Ramanathapuram Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-07-2020 M/s. Sainath Security Force & Man Power Service, Represented by its Proprietor B.S. Mannur Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Under Secretary, Bangaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
20-07-2020 M/s. Luminous Power Technologies (P) Ltd. & Another Versus Kanwar Sain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-07-2020 Sherif Vincent, Represented by his wife & Power of Attorney holder Reeny Sherif & Another Versus M.S. John & Another High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited Versus Rampal High Court of Delhi
30-06-2020 Bilsy Joseph, now residing at 3743, Falkner Drive, United States of America, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder (Mother), Rosamma Joseph, Kottayam Versus Registrar of Births & Deaths, Changanassery Muncipality, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., AP. & Others Versus Kimudu Monu & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Ge Power India Ltd. Versus NHPC Limited High Court of Delhi
18-06-2020 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Through Its Secretary/Cmd, The Mall Patiala Punjab & Others Versus Vikramjit Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 M/s. Group 5 Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-06-2020 Shankar Saran Versus Chairman & Managing Director Eastern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-06-2020 EHVEES, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Dealer, Manjeri, Represented by M. Muhammed Gadhafi, Power of Attorney Holder, Shoukathali Versus The District Collector, Malappuram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-06-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Versus State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited & Another Versus M/s. Srigdhaa Beverages Supreme Court of India
27-05-2020 Narayana Nayak, Represented by Special Power of Attorney Holder, S.M. Dhananjaya Versus Range Forest Officer, Hudikeri Branch, Kodagu & Another High Court of Karnataka
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
21-05-2020 The Institute of the Ursuline Franciscan Congregation, Represented by the Power of Attorney Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakf, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
15-05-2020 M/s S.M.C Power Generation Ltd, Orissa Versus Dilip Bhai Patel High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-05-2020 G.J. ECO Power Private Limited, having Its Registered Office at Ernakulam, Represented by Its Director, James Adai Versus Kochi Municipal Corporation, Represented by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
08-05-2020 M/s. Bhilwara Energy Ltd. & Another Versus The Chief Secretary (Power) Government of Arunachal Pradesh Supreme Court of India
08-05-2020 M/s. Suryadev Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Govind Gagoria & Another Versus M/s. Shri Govindaraja Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director, Aruppukottai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-05-2020 State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai Versus M/s. PRP Exports, M/s. PRP Granites through its Power Agent/Partner, P. Sureshkumar Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-05-2020 Grievances Redressal Officer, M/s. Economic Times Internet Ltd., Haryana & Others Versus M/s. V.V. Minerals Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Manager & Power Agent, S. Krishnamurthy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-04-2020 M/s. PPS Enviro Power Private Limited (PPSE) Versus M/s. Pantime Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-04-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus State Tradings Corporation Of India Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
03-04-2020 Sai Wardha Power Generation Limited Versus The Tata Power Company Limited Distribution & Others Supreme Court of India
23-03-2020 Jithin, Malappuram, Represented by his Power of Attorney holder, Geetha Versus Reshma & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 M/s. Asva Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Directorate of Logistics & Another Supreme Court of India
10-03-2020 Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited V/S Gemini Power Systems High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru
06-03-2020 Pankaj Kumar Singh Versus National Thermal Power Corp Ltd. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
05-03-2020 Muthu Versus M/s. Indusind Bank Limited, Represented by its Power of Attorney R.S. Bharath, Deputy Manager – Legal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 George P. John Versus Alex P. John, Represented by his wife & Power of Attorney holder Shirly Alex High Court of Kerala
05-03-2020 Muthu Versus M/s. Indusind Bank Limited, Represented by its Power of Attorney R.S. Bharath & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 S. Shybudheen, Rep. by his power of attorney agent, Ziauddin Ahmed Versus Reyhana Shmeem Begam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 In The Matter of: Liberty House Group Pte. Ltd. V/S State Bank of India And Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
03-03-2020 M/s. Srex Power India Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
03-03-2020 Ansy Rajan, (Now Residing in Qatar & Represented by Power of Attorney Holder Tomas George Frederic, Kadavanthra, Kochi) & Another Versus District Collector, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
02-03-2020 Suma Wilson, Represented by The Power of Attorney holder, T.O. Paul Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
28-02-2020 Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd Having its Registered office at NDPL House, Hudson Lines, New Delhi V/S Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary, New Delhi Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
28-02-2020 Pacific World Shipping PTE Ltd., Singapore Versus Dadi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Through Corporate Debtor Anandprakash Choudhari & Manju Choudhari & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
28-02-2020 Pacific World Shipping PTE Ltd., Singapore Versus Dadi Impex Pvt. Ltd. Through Mr. Anandprakash Choudhari, Mumbai & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
28-02-2020 Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited Through its authorized signatory, New Delhi Versus NTPC Limited Through its Chairman, New Delhi & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
28-02-2020 M/s. S.S. Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietrix S. Sumathi, Through her power agent R. Sivaramakrishnan Versus The District Collector, Erode High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited High Court of Delhi
27-02-2020 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Represented by its Senior Manager(RS) & Power Agent, S. Gunasekaran Versus V. Sudhakar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Limited V/S Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Another Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
25-02-2020 V. Seethapathi Naidu (Died), Rep. by his Power of Attorney Agent Chandrasekaran & Others Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Biomass Power Producers Association, Tamil Nadu Sigapi Achi Building, Chennai V/S Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission 19-A, Chennai And Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
17-02-2020 M/s. Hitachi Power Europe GmbH, Represented by the Authorised Signatory of its Project Office, Chennai, Pravesh P. Jain Versus Income tax Settlement Commission Additional Bench, Chennai Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 C.P. Shinod Versus M/s. Shriram Transport Co. Ltd Rep. by Its Power of Attorney Holder, Rajan & Another High Court of Kerala
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
13-02-2020 Musunuri Chinna Chakardhar, Represented by his Power of Attorney Agent, Chennai Versus The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 M/s. Malwa Solar Power Generation Private Limited Director, New Delhi Versus Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission The Secretary, Madhya Pradesh & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
10-02-2020 Madurai Power Corporation Limited, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Sushma Narayanappa, Versus Deepa Solar Power Generation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & Others National Company Law Tribunal Bengaluru
10-02-2020 Brahmacharimayum Achou Sharma & Others Versus The State of Manipur through the Chief Secretary-cum-Secretary (Power), Govt. of Manipur & Others High Court of Manipur
10-02-2020 Vaayu (India) Power Corporation (P) Limited, Rep. by V. Chandrasekar V/S Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Zothanpuia (Minor) Versus The Secretary, Power & Electricity Department, Government Of Mizoram, Aizawl High Court of Gauhati
07-02-2020 Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd. (Japan) Versus Orient Ship Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-02-2020 PPN Power Generating Company Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Ramakrishna Mission-Rep by its duly authorized Power Agent Swami Amirthananda Versus V. Parvathy High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Power Max (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jindal Urban Waste Management (Guntur) Ltd & Another High Court of Delhi
04-02-2020 M.K. Eco Power Private Limited & Others National Company Law Tribunal Bengaluru
03-02-2020 Lakshmi Rauschenbach, Rep. by Power of Attorney Anand Sasidharan Versus Valuesource Technologies (P) Ltd, Rep. by its Director Christian Lippens & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 U.P Power Corp Ltd Thru Managing Director Lko & Others Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court Faizabad & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
03-02-2020 Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Rep., by its Chairman, Karur Versus The Corporation Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Power of Attorney Agent, N.V. Aranganathan, Salem High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 SKS Power Generation (Chhattisgarh) Limited Through its Authorized Representative, V/S Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission Through Secretary And Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
31-01-2020 In Phase Power Technologies Private Limited V/S ABB India Limited Competition Commission of India
30-01-2020 GE Power India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Alstom Projects Ltd.) Versus A. Aziz Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee Vidyut Soudha, Represented by its Chief Engineer & Others V/S M/s. NSL Sugars Ltd., Represented by its AGM - Power Trading & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
30-01-2020 Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Ram Gopal Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 M/s. Lanco Tanjore Power Company Ltd., T.Nagar, Chennai & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
29-01-2020 Adani Power Rajasthan Limited V/S Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, Through its Secretary, Jaipur Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
29-01-2020 Rajumary, through her power of attorney, A. Philip Berchmans Raj Versus Vellathai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-01-2020 KARE Power Resources Private Limited, Bengaluru & Another Versus Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
29-01-2020 BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Another Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
28-01-2020 Pragati Power Corporation Ltd. (PPCL) V/S Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
27-01-2020 P.R. Dhanalakshmiammal (Died) Rep. through her General Power of Attorney P.K. Jothikrishnan & Another Versus Lazar Nadar Rep. through his power agent S.Shanmugavel & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-01-2020 Director (Personnel), WCL Head Office situated at Civil Lines & Others Versus Sadashiv Sittidin Gupta In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
23-01-2020 Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jindal India Thermal Power Limited High Court of Delhi
22-01-2020 Kalpataru Power Transmission Limited Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited High Court of Delhi
21-01-2020 Haryana Power Purchase Centre Versus Magnum Power Generation Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-01-2020 Tractebel Engineering Private Limited Versus Patnazi Power Limited National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
21-01-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-01-2020 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Nandanam, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. UB Engineering Limited, Rep. by its Power of Attorney G.D. Deshpande & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 His Holiness Sri-La-Sri Kasivasi, Muthukumaraswamy Thambiran Swamigal, Rep. By Power Holder Srimath Sundaramurthi Thambiran Swamigal, Joint Head of Kasimadam, Thanjavur Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Shanavas Zainul Arab, Rep. by her power of attorney R. Rajmohan Versus The District Collector-cum-Additional Secretary (Revenue), Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2020 A.V. Bindhu Versus Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd. Iritty Brach, Represented by Its Power of Attorney Holder, P.M. Rajani & Another High Court of Kerala
16-01-2020 Rahul S. Shah, Represented by its Power of Attorney Kethan S. Shah & Others Versus Jinendrakumar Gandhi & Others High Court of Karnataka