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



M/s. Zoom International, Rep. by its Proprietrix, V.N. Usha v/s The Commissioner of Customs & 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:- REP CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26921TN2005PTC055138

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

Company & Directors' Information:- ZOOM INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH2006PTC159728

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

Company & Directors' Information:- P V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1998PTC094598

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:- ZOOM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2013PTC262741

Company & Directors' Information:- VN INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2019PTC354836

    W.P. No. 9421 of 2019

    Decided On, 02 April 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

    For the Petitioner: S.L. Sudarsanam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Rajasekar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: in WP: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondents to release (BLACK MATPE 2018 CROP (Urad Dhall) falling under EXIM Code 07131100) about 19,400 MTS(approximately) imported by the petitioner under 5 bills of Entry ONEYYGNU06619500 dated 24.12.2018, YGNCB18002082 dated 26.12.2018, Nos.KFMO0900945S dated 30.12.2018, KFMO0900948S dated 30.12.2018 and KFMO0900953S dated 19.01.2019 covered under Contract No.VM/06/07/2017 dated 24.07.2017 and No.SC-592 dated 06.07.2017 and further consequently direct the Respondents to issue a Detention Certificate for waiver of Demurrage and Container Detention charges in terms of Regulations 6(1)(1) of Handling of cargo in customs Areas Regulations, 2009.)

1. The Writ Petition has been filed by petitioner seeking a Mandamus for the release of consignments under 5 Bills of Entry ONEYYGNU06619500 dated 24.12.2018, YGNCB18002082 dated 26.12.2018, Nos.KFMO0900945S dated 30.12.2018, KFMO0900948S dated 30.12.2018 and KFMO0900953S dated 19.01.2019 covered under Contract No.VM/06/07/2017 dated 24.07.2017 and No.SC-592 dated 06.07.2017 and further consequently direct the Respondents to issue a Detention Certificate for waiver of Demurrage and Container Detention charges in terms of Regulations6(1)(1) of Handling of cargo in customs Areas Regulations, 2009.

2. The identical issue as arising in these Writ Petitions has been considered by me vide my order dated 27.02.2019 in W.P.No.4403 of 2019 (batch) in the case of M/s.Royal Impex V. Commissioner of Customs. The aforesaid order is applicable to the present cases on all fours. The entire order is extracted herein for the sake of clarity:

“Sixty Six (66) petitioners are before this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to release consignments of ‘Peas’ and ‘Dhall’ imported by the petitioner under the Bills of Entry in terms of earlier orders of this Court and further direct the respondents to issue a ‘Detention Certificate’ for waiver of Demurrage and Container Detention Charges in terms of Regulation 6(1)(l) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009.

2. Detailed submissions of Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General appearing for Mr.R.Satish Sundar, Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.A.Suresh, Mr.P.Sidharthan, Mr.C.Vigneshwaran, Mr.K.Mohanamurali and Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.R.Sundar, Ms.Aparna Nandakumar, Mr.Madhana Gopal Rao and Mr.K.Umesh Rao, learned standing counsels for the respondents have been heard. No counters have been filed till date though the earliest matter in the batch came up on 15.02.2019 when learned standing counsel for the Revenue took notice as well as time to file a counter. Be that as it may, both sides have addressed the Court by way of detailed submissions, circulating relevant material as well as case-law in support of their contentions.

3. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Assistant Solicitor General intervenes in the matter to urge that the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), the entity that has issued certain relevant Notifications, be made a party to the Writ Petitions. However, since the Writ Petitioners seek only a mandamus and do not challenge the Notifications itself, I do not believe that the DGFT is a necessary party to the proceedings. In fact, these very petitioners before me have challenged Notification dated 25.04.2018 by way of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.15921 to 15924 of 2018; Notification dated 02.07.2018 in W.P.Nos.17387 to 17391, 19684 and 18840 of 2018; Notifications dated 05.08.2017, 21.08.2017 and 04.05.2018 in W.P.Nos.21454, 21455 and 26486 of 2018 and Notification dated 28.09.2018 in W.P.Nos.26440 and 26433 of 2018 wherein the DGFT has, rightly, been made a party.

4. The mandamus sought before me is based on the strength of the interim stay granted by this Court and admittedly in force at time when the consignments in question have been imported. The entire batch of Writ Petitions filed challenging Notification Nos.04/2015-20 dated 25.04.2018, 15/2015-2020 dated 02.07.2018, 19/2015-20 dated 05.08.2017, 22/2015-20 dated 21.08.2017, 06/2015-20 dated 04.05.2018 and 37/2015-20 dated 28.09.2018 has been heard by a learned single Judge of this Court and orders have been reserved on 09.01.2019.

5. The facts in relation to all the above Writ Petitions are more or less uniform and the defence put forth by the respondents is also the same in all cases. The petitioners are importers of two kinds of products (i) various varieties of peas such as Yellow Peas, Green Peas, Dun Peas, Kaspa Peas, Pigeon Peas (Cajanus Cajan), and (ii) dhalls, being Toor, Moong and Urad Dhall (Black Matpe) (Beans of the species Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper or Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek.

6. The petitioners in W.P.Nos. 4721, 4726, 5107, 5079, 5167, 5137, 5088, 5091, 5102, 5098, 5117, 5108, 4826, 4830, 4932, 4990, 4993, 4956, 4961, 4964, 4908, 5323, 5335, 5340, 5344, 5348, 5357, 5359, 5388, 5400, 5390, 5390 and 4428 of 2019 are importers of dhalls and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.4403, 5041, 5043, 5046, 5048, 5084, 5093, 4985, 4432, 4417, 5112, 5119, 5101, 5113, 4712, 4719, 4722, 4838, 4941, 4926, 4923, 4916, 4912, 5332, 5339, 5342, 5345, 5379, 5385, 5383, 5370 and 5377 of 2019 are importers of different varieties of peas.

7. The import of both products has been subject to restriction placed by the Customs authorities under a series of notifications issued from April 2018 onwards in the case of peas and August 2017 onwards in the case of dhalls. As far as Toor, Moong and Urad Dhalls are concerned, the respondents have issued two notifications bearing numbers (i) No.22/2015-2020 dated 21.08.2017 and (ii) 06/2015-2020 dated 04.05.2018. The Notifications restrict the quantum of import of dhalls and the operation of the said notifications has been stayed by orders of this Court dated 31.08.2018 in W.P.Nos.21454 and 21455 of 2018 and WMP Nos.25197, 25198 and 25200 of 2018.

8. As far as peas are concerned, initially a notification was issued on 25th April 2018 for the period 01.04.2018 to 30.06.2018 that placed a restriction on the quantum of peas liable to be imported. The Policy condition was set out in paragraph 4 of the notification, extracted below:

‘During the period from 01st April to 30th June 2018 total quantity of one lakh MT of yellow peas minus the quantity already imported from 01.04.2018 till date will be allowed against licence as per procedure to be notified by DGFT.

“Already Imported” will include shipment already arrived from 01.04.2016 till 25.04.2018 and those shipments backed by Irrevocable Commercial Letter of Credit (ICLC) and Advance Payment made through Banking Channel before 25.04.2018. Both these categories will be required to be registered with Jurisdictional Regional Authority as per Para 1.05 of Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20.’

9. The second notification bearing No.15/2015-2020 was issued on 02.07.2018 for the period 1st July 2018 to 30th September, 2018 continuing the restriction for the subsequent three months as well. Again, vide Notification bearing No.37/2015-2020 dated 28.09.2018 the restriction was continued for the period 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018.

10. The Writ Petitioners are concerned with imports effected during the period of Notification dated 28.09.2018, in the case of peas, and pursuant to Notification 04.05.2018, in the case of dhalls. The case of the petitioners is that the transactions of imports had crystallised even prior to the date of the relevant Notifications. The dates of shipment/date of bills of lading in all cases is between the period 01.10.2018 and 31.12.2018. Similar/identical consignments that had been shipped and imported during the period in question have been permitted to be cleared by the customs authorities. However, the authorities have illegally detained the present consignments in spite of there being a stay of operation of the Notifications in question having been granted by this Court. The petitioners rely on the following judgments of the Supreme Court in support of their arguments.

i. Union of India V. Asian Food Industries (2006 (204) ELT 8 (SC))

ii. Priyanka Overseas Private Ltd. And another V. Union of India and others ((1991) SUPP 1 SCC 102)

iii. Rajkumar Dey and others V. Tarapada Dey and others ((1987) 4 SCC 398)

iv. Gursharan Singh and others V. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others ((1996) 2 SCC 459)

11. The respondents, for their part, draw support from the Policy of the Government to restrict imports of products available indigenously in order to encourage local farmers. The Notifications, according to them, echo the aforesaid Policy decision and have been issued only to advance the object and rationale of the policy itself. Accordingly, they would urge that this Court should take into account the fact that if clearance of the imported consignments is permitted, small farmers would be greatly prejudiced and negatively impacted.

12. Learned counsels also point out that the Notifications in question had been the subject of challenge in several High Courts. The challenge had been rejected by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court vide its order dated 19.12.2018 in the case of Premium Pulses Products V. Union of India (R/special Civil Application Nos.16765, 17290, 17573 and 17664 of 2018). The importers had challenged the decision of the Gujarat High Court by way of a petition for Special Leave that had been rejected by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 28.01.2019 in SLP (C) No.1922 of 2019 in the case of Kusum Agency V. Union of India and others. Accordingly, they would submit that goods in question assumed the character of prohibited goods and rightly not permitted to be cleared by the authorities.

13. The legal defence raised is that the imports would not be covered by the Notifications in question in so far as, for reckoning the date of import, it would be the date of Bill of Entry that would be relevant and not the date of Bill of Lading.

14. Learned counsels circulate an internal Instruction issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade dated 31.01.2019 referring to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the order of the Gujarat High Court and instructing all officers within India not to permit clearance of the goods. They also stress upon the fact that it was only by reason of the stay granted by the learned single Judge of this Court that several imported consignments have been permitted to be cleared. To this, learned counsels for the petitioners point out that the Calcutta High Court has accepted the challenge to the Notification in question vide its decision in the case of Sanmarg Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2019 (365) E.L.T. 273 (Cal)] and the aforesaid decision have not been challenged by the Revenue. A copy of the aforesaid decision is placed on record.

15. Heard learned counsel. The relevant facts that are admitted before me are:

(i) In the case of import of peas, substantially all imports in question are covered by Bills of Lading drawn between the dates of 01.10.2018 and 31.12.2018. There are however, a few instances where the Bills of Lading have been drawn after 01.01.2019 in which event this Order would not be applicable. This order will be applicable, in the case of imports of peas, only in respect of those consignments covered under Bills of Lading during the period 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018. As far as import of consignments of dhalls are concerned, since the notification did not stipulate any time period, this restriction will not apply to the Writ Petitions filed in cases of imports of dhalls.

(ii) Some petitioners before me have challenged Notification bearing No.37/2015-2020 dated 28.09.2018 applicable for the period 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 by way of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.26433, 26440, 26495, 27056, 26464, 26471, 26475, 26479, 27319, 27327, 27336, 27370 of 2018. A learned Single Judge of this Court has stayed the operation of the Notification in question and such order of stay was valid and in subsistence at the time when the imports, have been made.

(iii) The liability to duty of the goods in question is as follows:

Yellow Peas, Green Peas, Dun Peas, Kaspa Peas: 50%

Pigeon Peas/Toor Dal : 10%

Urad Dal and Moong Dal : Nil

16. The limited questions that I am called upon to consider in the light of the admitted facts as above, are twofold:

(i) Whether the relevant date for the reckoning the date of the imports would be the date of Bill of Lading or Bill of Entry;

(ii) Whether there is any embargo on the import of the consignments of dhalls in the present cases;

(iii) Whether there is any embargo on the import of the consignments of peas imported during 01.10.2018 and 31.12.2018 and covered by Bills of Lading for the aforesaid period.

17. As regards the first issue, Regulation 9.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy specifically states that for the purpose of reckoning the date of import, the relevant date would be the date of Bill of Lading only. In the light of the aforesaid the Foreign Trade Policy being a complete code by itself, reference by the learned counsels for the Revenue to section 15 of the Customs Act, which fixes the date for determination of rate of duty and tariff for the purpose of valuation of imported goods as the date of Bill of Entry, may not be relevant.

18. The Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India V. Asian Food Industries (supra), considered the validity of exports of certain consignments of pulses. The admitted position was that the transactions for exports had been negotiated and finalised by the petitioner at a time when the exports was permitted. While this is so, the Central Government took the decision to ban export of pulses. The aforesaid decision was reported widely in the media. But the notification banning the export was issued only later in exercise of power under section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation Act), 1992, under which the Government prohibited export of various goods for a period of six months from the date of notification. By the time the said notification came to the knowledge of the petitioner, the consignments were under shipment, but were detained upon arrival by the customs authorities, who were of the view that the consignments were prohibited in the light of the notification issued. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Delhi High Court had expressed a view in favour of the customer. The view was affirmed by Supreme Court holding that a vested or accrued right cannot be taken away by reason of a policy. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below:

33. The scheme of the Foreign Trade Policy postulates that when the policy provisions are amended which are disadvantageous to the exporters, the modification would not be attracted...........

36. Different stages for the purpose of the said Act would, therefore, be different. For interpretation of the provisions of the 1992 Act and the policy laid down as also the procedures framed thereunder vis--vis the provisions of the 1962 Act, the rate of custom duty has no relevance. What would be relevant for the said purpose would be actual permission of the proper officer granting clearance and loading of the goods for exportation. As soon as such permission is granted, the procedures laid down for export must be held to have been complied with.............

48. The Delhi High Court, however, in our view correctly opined that the notification dated 4.07.2006 could not have been taken into consideration on the basis of the purported publicity made in the proposed change in the export policy in electronic or print media. Prohibition promulgated by a statutory order in terms of Section 5 read with the relevant provisions of the policy decision in the light of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the 1992 Act can only have a prospective effect. By reason of a policy, a vested or accrued right cannot be taken away. Such a right, therefore, cannot a fortiori be taken away by an amendment thereof.

18. In the case of Priyanka Overseas Private Ltd. And another V. Union of India and others, the Supreme Court held as follows:

31. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. We have to first consider whether 'Palm Kernel' and 'palm seed' were two different commodities or 'Palm Kernel' was included in 'Pal, seed' for the purposes of import. The difference between 'palm seed' and 'Palm Kernel' has been explained in the letter of the Central Plantation Crops Research Institute date January 21, 1987 (placed on record), it reads as under:

“The difference between Palm Kernel and palm seeds has also been pointed out in the aforesaid letter according to which palm seed is specially extracted from fruits while kernel is a product obtained after sterilisation, digestion at 95 Celsius, pressing, decarping, shelling etc. The Palm Kernel will lose its viability due to the above processes and cannot be used for germination.”

Under Appendix 5 Part (b) Item 5 of the Import Policy under the heading. Oils/seeds only Palm oil/Palm seeds have been mentioned. We agree with the view taken by the High Court in this regard that Palm Kernel cannot be included under the item palm seeds and the two commodities were different as understood in commerce or trade. We do not want to burden this judgment by citing those authorities which have already been considered for deciding this controversy by the High Court. We do not see any force in the contention of the learned Solicitor General in this regard that the government had only made a clarification vide Notification dated July 27, 1987 by introducing in Appendix 5 Part (b) Item No.5 “all other oils/seeds/any other material from which oil can be extracted”. It is significant that in the aforesaid notification published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary para (1) Section 121, it was clearly mentioned that the same was issued as an amendment to the earlier Notice No.1-ITC (PN)/85-88 dated April 12, 1985. The notification stated that the following amendment shall be made in the Policy at proper places indicated below and then under the head amendment the new provision which included all other seeds from which oil can be extracted” was mentioned. It is therefore evident that the government of India itself, realised the difference in the two commodities therefore it amended its previous policy. We are therefore of the opinion that prior to July 27, 1987 'Palm Kernel” was not a canlised item and the High Court rightly held that 'Palm Kernel' was not included with in the entry of 'palm seed'.

Since 'Palm Kernel' was not included within 'palm seed' the customs authorities had no legal justification to confiscate or impose redemption fine, or penalty, as the goods had already been shipped on various dated i.e. On June 26, 1987 and July 25, 1987. It is no longer in dispute that if the Palm Kernel was not a canalised item before July 27, 1987 then it could have been imported under the OGL before that date. The crucial dates in this regard are June 26, 1987 and July 25, 1987 when the goods were actually loaded in the ship and not the date of arrival of the ship in the territorial waters of India.

(emphasis by underlining, mine)

21. In the light of the above, the relevant date for reckoning the import of the consignments of peas is the date of Bill of Lading.

22. Some submissions have been made on the merits of the chall

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

enge to the notifications itself. However, insofar as the Writ Petitions challenging notifications are, admittedly, pending decision before another learned single Judge of this Court, I consciously refrain from adverting to the same. 23. The grant of stay of operation of the relevant Notifications and the pendency of the said stay as on the date of import is admitted. Thus, and in conclusion, on the basis of the admitted position on facts as recorded by me in paragraph 15 of this order and bearing in mind the balance of convenience in the present case, the consignments in question are liable to be released, though conditionally.” 3. In the light of the aforesaid, the conclusions as arrived at by me in my order above will equally apply in the present cases as well. 4. The petitioner will remit the entire duty component of the consignments imported by them in cases were such duty is leviable as per paragraph 15(iii) above along with a bank guarantee for the 10% of the invoice value. In cases where the duty impact is neutral, the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee for the 10% of the invoice value. Upon satisfaction of the aforesaid conditions, the consignments shall be released forthwith. 5. The authorities are at liberty to initiate proceedings in respect of the transactions in question and if done, the petitioner shall appear, be heard and file their submissions pursuant to which orders shall be passed by the authorities in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner has also prayed for waiver of demurrage charges incurred in respect of the detained consignments. In the light of Rule 6(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, which provides that the Customs Cargo Provider shall not, subject to any other law for the time being in force, charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser or Inspector of Customs or Preventive officer or examining officer, as the case may be, there shall be a waiver of demurrage charges. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

24-07-2020 Narasimharao @ Appi & Others Versus State of Karnataka by Turuvekere Police Station, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
24-07-2020 K.P.P. Panneer Chelvan & Another Versus State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai City-I Detachment, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2020 D.Siluvai Venance (Wrongly mentioned as Permons) Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-07-2020 Vishwanath & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Ranebennur Town Police, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
24-07-2020 P. Prabhavathi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
23-07-2020 Vikram Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
23-07-2020 Syed Hidayath @ Chotu Dubbel Versus State by KG Halli PS Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
23-07-2020 Aqua Pump Industries, Rep by its Managing Partner Ramaswamy Kumaravelu & Another Versus N. Raju, Trading as S.M.Agriculture & Electronics, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 V. Venkata Siva Kumar Versus Institute of Cost Accountants of India, Rep. by the President, M.K. Thakur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Sankar @ Jeyasankar @ Sivasankaran Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Udaiyalipatti Police Station, Pudukkottai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
22-07-2020 Y.M. Chetan & Another Versus State By Channarayapatna Town P.S, Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka
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
20-07-2020 S. John Peter Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-07-2020 S. John Peter Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2020 M/s. Sarvodhaya Sangam Khadhi Vasthralayam, Rep. by its Secretary, Govindarajalu Versus S. Dhanalakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Sk. Imran Ali Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
15-07-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by their Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Sivarajan Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
14-07-2020 M/s. Iqra Granite Crusher, Rep. by its Partner Ahamedulla Khan, Kolar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 A.N. Prakash Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Asha & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Radhakrishna Reddy & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Santhosha Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
13-07-2020 Dr. K.J. Joseph & Others Versus The Mattathur Grama Panchayath, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 B. Manjunath & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
13-07-2020 Koti Lingaiah & Another Versus State of Karnataka by, Rep. by Govt. Pleader, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
10-07-2020 Sharathkumar Versus The State of Karnataka by Annapoorneshwari, Rep. by its Government Pleader, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
10-07-2020 Kuppusamy & Another Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthukottai Sub Division, Tiruvallur High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2020 Mohammed Shahid Khaleel Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 M.P. Lokesha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 S.R. Ganesan Versus The State rep., by its, Principal Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-07-2020 Waheed Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
07-07-2020 Dr. Y. Kedareswari Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Social Welfare (SC Development) Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-07-2020 Sunitha Krishnan Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-07-2020 M/s. Srini Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Red. by its Managing Director, Tera Chinnappa Reddy Versus Union of India, rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-07-2020 B.A.S. Devi Prasad Versus The Telangana Co-operative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-07-2020 The Management of M/s. Therelek Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, S. Venkatramana Bhat Versus K. Dharman High Court of Karnataka
01-07-2020 M/s. Salem Constructions, A registered Partnership Firm, Rep. By its Managing Director, N. Selvam & Others Versus K. Santhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 Dr. P.S. Sandeep & Others Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
29-06-2020 R. Sampath Versus Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-06-2020 P.K. Thankappan Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla Police Station, Thiruvalla [Crime No. 731 of 2009] Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
26-06-2020 IRCON International Ltd. Versus M/s. Meumal Athwani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-06-2020 Bismi Aquatic Products, Rep by its Partner, M. Ashraf Ali Versus The Superintending Engineer, Ramanathapuram Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Ramanathapuram & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-06-2020 Far N Par (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad Rep. by its Director Naraharisetti Sirusha Versus Galt Pharma Exports Private Limited, Secunderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-06-2020 Suresh Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
25-06-2020 Sunil @ Sunil Ashok Gadivaddar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
25-06-2020 M/s. Goodwill Leather Art Rep By its Prop Md Quddus ALi Alias Md Quddus Ali Molla Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 V. Vasantha Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to the Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-06-2020 Maruthi @ Polard Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 M/s. Acme Trade And Agencies, ASSAM Versus Union of India Rep. By The Secy. to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 Rohini Gogoi (Under Suspension) Versus State of Assam Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Health Engineering Deptt. High Court of Gauhati
23-06-2020 Swetha Shri Selvakumar Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 Tanveer Ahmed Versus State Women Police Station, Rep. State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 The State rep.by. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai Versus R.S. Bharathi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 M/s. Angelique International Limited Versus Public Electricity Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
22-06-2020 A. Devaraj Versus The State of Tamilnadu, rep. By its Chief Secretary to the Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
22-06-2020 B. Ramamoorthy & Another Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 Chandra Marbles Mattannur, Rep By Its Properties C.M. Jeeja Versus C.H. Ramachandran & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 Maria Lijose Kumar & Others Versus The State, Rep by The Inspector of Police, CBCID-HQRS, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 Prakasha Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
18-06-2020 N. Krishnamoorthy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-06-2020 M. Nagalakshmi Versus Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-06-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Punnam Chander complex, Chowrastha, Hanmkonda, Warangal Versus Sangeraboina Uppalaiah & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-06-2020 M.V. Ramani Versus The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 Md Kameual Islam & Others Versus The State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
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
11-06-2020 J. Antony Jayakumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home (Prison IV), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-06-2020 G. Gnaneshwar Versus The State of A.P., rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB, Hyderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-06-2020 State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, O/o. Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu, Chennai Versus M/s. National Pharmaceuticals [A-3], A Division of Rider Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Kamalchand Jain, Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-06-2020 Sethupathi Ramalingam & Another Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sooramangalam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2020 Rajeswari Versus The state rep by the Inspector of Police, Kariyapattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2020 Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
05-06-2020 The Salem District Lorry Owners Association rep.by its President V. Chennakesavan Versus The Inspector of Factories, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Jeyachandran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Public (Foreigners.I) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Anandan Versus State Rep by the Inspector of Police W-17, Peravallur Police Station Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 M. Parthasarathi & Another Versus The State Level Scrutiny Committee rep. by its Chairman Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Chennai Garrtech Ltd., Rep. By its Director, L.S. Abinesha Babu Versus Inspector General of Registration, Santhome & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Sakthivel Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Inspector of Police, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, Neyveli T.S. High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Nisar Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Director General of Prosecution, High Court of, Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
03-06-2020 Somasundaram @ Somu Versus The State Rep. By The Deputy Commissioner of Police Supreme Court of India
03-06-2020 P. Venkatasubramani & Another Versus Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 PUEBLO HOLDINGS LIMITED, Rep. by its authorised signatory Siddhesh Sham Kshirsagar Versus EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC, A company incorporated under the appropriate laws of the United Arab Emirates having its registered office and/or business address at ETA Star House, United Arab Emirates & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 V. Saravanan Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Rep. by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-06-2020 Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), Rep. by its Chairman Prof. M.H. Jawahirullah Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 Merugu Narsaiah @ Narsimha Reddy & Others Versus The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-06-2020 A. Janakiraman Versus The Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, rep. by its Chief Executive, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association, Reg No: 321/MDS, Rep by its Joint General Secretary, R. Muthukumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Kalamani Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the District Collector of Vellore District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Balraj Versus State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-06-2020 Subramani Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri District High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Dr. A.K. Sheik Manzoor Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Citizens Legal Right Association, Rep. by Its President, Joshy Kalluveettil & Another Versus Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
02-06-2020 A. Thangaraj Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-06-2020 C. Sasiyendran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-06-2020 Padmavani Educational & Charitable Trust, Rep.by its Joint Managing Trustee, Salem Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras