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



NSL Sugars Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Liason) H.V. Amarnath v/s State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary (Sugar) Commerce & Industries Department, Bangalore & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- NSL SUGARS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15429KA1999PLC026121

Company & Directors' Information:- A B SUGARS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15421DL1997PLC128097

Company & Directors' Information:- T T G INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27209TN1987PLC014169

Company & Directors' Information:- V I P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L25200MH1968PLC013914

Company & Directors' Information:- A L M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14100DL1996PLC129067

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17121MH1991PLC257750

Company & Directors' Information:- S R INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L29246PB1989PLC009531

Company & Directors' Information:- F E INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36100PB2003PTC026482

Company & Directors' Information:- N K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L91110GJ1987PLC009905

Company & Directors' Information:- T S I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U18101HR1997PTC034478

Company & Directors' Information:- B L A INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U10200MH1964PTC162314

Company & Directors' Information:- A B SUGARS LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U15317CH1997PLC020435

Company & Directors' Information:- H G I INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40200WB1944PLC011754

Company & Directors' Information:- R P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100GJ2011PTC075812

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1974PLC007169

Company & Directors' Information:- A G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27300HR1991PTC031378

Company & Directors' Information:- H. J. INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120GJ2010PTC060769

Company & Directors' Information:- G R S INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000PB2005PLC029159

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA E-COMMERCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = L99999MH1968PLC014091

Company & Directors' Information:- T S L INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65999WB1994PLC065255

Company & Directors' Information:- M F B INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31401TN1989PLC018274

Company & Directors' Information:- A C M E INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Dormant under section 455] CIN = U19119DL1992PLC048914

Company & Directors' Information:- V S P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ2005PTC011820

Company & Directors' Information:- M N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100TG2012PTC079737

Company & Directors' Information:- G I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312PB2010PTC033806

Company & Directors' Information:- E T C INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31200MP1995PLC009281

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC045572

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V E INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U03210TZ2006PLC012577

Company & Directors' Information:- Z H INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200DL2014PTC265453

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21010MH1992PLC068885

Company & Directors' Information:- N G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L74140WB1994PLC065937

Company & Directors' Information:- S L INDUSTRIES P. LTD. [Active] CIN = U15331WB1989PTC047543

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L51909AS1985PLC002332

Company & Directors' Information:- T R A T INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25199KL1996PLC010148

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC067120

Company & Directors' Information:- N M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC175664

Company & Directors' Information:- N R C INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB1985PLC006558

Company & Directors' Information:- S N L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17115RJ1994PTC008053

Company & Directors' Information:- J V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057081

Company & Directors' Information:- S M SUGAR PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51299DL1999PTC098109

Company & Directors' Information:- A R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27101HR1995PTC032569

Company & Directors' Information:- D V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049221

Company & Directors' Information:- C D INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH1996PLC101277

Company & Directors' Information:- G V INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2014PTC096387

Company & Directors' Information:- G S M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U02001DL2002PTC117443

Company & Directors' Information:- B G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U26921ML1980PLC001830

Company & Directors' Information:- P K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900DL2012PTC241654

Company & Directors' Information:- M D INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U91110GJ1994PTC022025

Company & Directors' Information:- L C INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15122UP2013PTC055697

Company & Directors' Information:- G. A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15435MH2005PTC151817

Company & Directors' Information:- P A S INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active in Progress] CIN = U17121TZ2005PTC012171

Company & Directors' Information:- S K G SUGAR LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U15421BR1971PLC000906

Company & Directors' Information:- S H COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB2008PTC121420

Company & Directors' Information:- A. M. COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2011PTC168744

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039251

Company & Directors' Information:- M K J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19111UP1989PTC010468

Company & Directors' Information:- S S F INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25190BR1988PLC003160

Company & Directors' Information:- P B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120MP1994PTC008840

Company & Directors' Information:- R & M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24297TN1972PTC006185

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U21012WB1977PLC030854

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17117DL1995PTC064137

Company & Directors' Information:- M C INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U27106WB1993PLC058995

Company & Directors' Information:- D R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100WB2011PTC160058

Company & Directors' Information:- R. L. F. INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1983PLC015262

Company & Directors' Information:- U K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24241WB1988PTC044355

Company & Directors' Information:- M G I INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27310GJ2006PTC048707

Company & Directors' Information:- A D INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2008PTC131561

Company & Directors' Information:- V J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253KA2009PTC050226

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150WB1985PLC039217

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150WB1985PTC039217

Company & Directors' Information:- G R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300PB1996PTC018671

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15549WB2008PTC130116

Company & Directors' Information:- R S V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52399MH2008PTC180489

Company & Directors' Information:- K. A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14220JH2008PTC013409

Company & Directors' Information:- D K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202CH1994PLC014627

Company & Directors' Information:- D G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U36942WB1946PTC013526

Company & Directors' Information:- R I L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1993PTC052678

Company & Directors' Information:- I S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29100GJ2009PTC057308

Company & Directors' Information:- B M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17000MH1997PTC109621

Company & Directors' Information:- R V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ1995PTC006398

Company & Directors' Information:- B N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120AS1994PTC004273

Company & Directors' Information:- A J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH2004PTC145040

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. A INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01549TZ1997PTC007927

Company & Directors' Information:- K K S K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19201TZ1997PTC007687

Company & Directors' Information:- C R I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29120TZ2002PTC010129

Company & Directors' Information:- A C T INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC018724

Company & Directors' Information:- G B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29220PN2011PTC139883

Company & Directors' Information:- S D B INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MP1996PLC010394

Company & Directors' Information:- M M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31300CT2008PTC020916

Company & Directors' Information:- A C INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29299WB2006PTC109474

Company & Directors' Information:- K M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC043295

Company & Directors' Information:- C J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25209MH1998PTC116707

Company & Directors' Information:- N P INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15549PB1989PLC009426

Company & Directors' Information:- J. L. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29141MP2008PTC020731

Company & Directors' Information:- I K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100MH2010PTC199474

Company & Directors' Information:- H. D. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310MH2011PTC216080

Company & Directors' Information:- R. D. G. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26960DL2008PTC182480

Company & Directors' Information:- R B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28999DL2008PTC177248

Company & Directors' Information:- H & H INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34100DL2010PTC204604

Company & Directors' Information:- M J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15203KA2011PTC060675

Company & Directors' Information:- B R V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32301UP1995PTC018704

Company & Directors' Information:- A. G. INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25201UP1994PLC017291

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15204AS1993PLC003930

Company & Directors' Information:- I P M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25200DL1995PLC068554

Company & Directors' Information:- M R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900UP2008PTC036443

Company & Directors' Information:- R D I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1995PTC065508

Company & Directors' Information:- J G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L15141WB1983PLC035931

Company & Directors' Information:- G S E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52100KA2013PTC067567

Company & Directors' Information:- V G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15139JK2015PTC004570

Company & Directors' Information:- V K COMMERCE PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U51109WB1984PTC037122

Company & Directors' Information:- S N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29211UP1951PTC002319

Company & Directors' Information:- P. R. COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2008PTC122333

Company & Directors' Information:- M & P E. COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74300DL1999PTC099198

Company & Directors' Information:- S. B. SUGAR LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201WB1995PLC072017

Company & Directors' Information:- K G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29130WB1951PTC019868

Company & Directors' Information:- N S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74120UP2012PTC053986

Company & Directors' Information:- W W I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29300MH1997PTC112589

Company & Directors' Information:- R S COMMERCE PVT LTD [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51909WB1995PTC074372

Company & Directors' Information:- D U INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29230GJ2016PTC091588

Company & Directors' Information:- S R P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U00061BR1984PLC002023

Company & Directors' Information:- P S COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB1997PTC084487

Company & Directors' Information:- C P INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29303MP1949PTC000846

Company & Directors' Information:- J B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH2013PTC245506

Company & Directors' Information:- S J V INDUSTRIES LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U15421WB1982PLC035521

Company & Directors' Information:- V V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1980PTC010427

Company & Directors' Information:- K K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65100DL1982PTC013046

Company & Directors' Information:- A T C INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27109AS1984PLC002201

Company & Directors' Information:- N V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1953PTC020952

Company & Directors' Information:- AND E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120AP2015PTC096206

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31908AS1987PTC002804

Company & Directors' Information:- L K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291MH2012PTC233546

Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL COMMERCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U41404DL1973PLC006514

Company & Directors' Information:- AMARNATH INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25209RJ2014PTC046416

Company & Directors' Information:- S S SUGAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2012PTC142939

Company & Directors' Information:- G S C INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U92114DL1956PTC002616

Company & Directors' Information:- G G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27320UP1969PTC003282

Company & Directors' Information:- K S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31909MH1960PTC011707

Company & Directors' Information:- R B SUGARS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15421KA2015PLC079643

Company & Directors' Information:- P R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U21014DL1971PTC005738

Company & Directors' Information:- R K I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29190DL2012PTC233413

Company & Directors' Information:- A P COMMERCE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1981PLC033798

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25202AS1988PTC003132

Company & Directors' Information:- S G R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25199WB1948PTC016397

Company & Directors' Information:- K R INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25190KA2012PTC062367

Company & Directors' Information:- Y K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19115UP2012PTC051151

Company & Directors' Information:- E S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN2012PTC086119

Company & Directors' Information:- I B INDUSTRIES LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28992WB1990PLC050469

Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36900WB1934PLC007878

Company & Directors' Information:- V I INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36934WB1951PLC019890

Company & Directors' Information:- J M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U05002UP1952PTC002456

Company & Directors' Information:- L F INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291UP2015PTC068602

Company & Directors' Information:- A K S INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27201WB1946PTC013433

Company & Directors' Information:- K P INDIA COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909AS2001PTC006701

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403KA2012PTC062199

Company & Directors' Information:- V M V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26990GJ2013PTC076945

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U29248PN1948PLC001948

Company & Directors' Information:- SUGAR CORPORATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15424WB1954PTC000884

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20232AS1980PTC001853

Company & Directors' Information:- V N R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21090AP2012PTC081525

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1944PTC011764

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1946PTC000938

Company & Directors' Information:- G I P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52605MH2015PTC263962

Company & Directors' Information:- C. L. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109RJ2014PTC045306

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH2014PTC254820

Company & Directors' Information:- Y S E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200MH2000PTC126344

Company & Directors' Information:- S. B. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900PN2012PTC144181

Company & Directors' Information:- A & P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36935TG2014PTC095781

Company & Directors' Information:- C & N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40200TG2014PTC095187

Company & Directors' Information:- B S B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2013PTC088059

Company & Directors' Information:- R A R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2016PTC103684

Company & Directors' Information:- K S A B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2012PTC181903

Company & Directors' Information:- S V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36100JK2013PTC003808

Company & Directors' Information:- I P E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52399CH2012PTC033585

Company & Directors' Information:- R D M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31100DL2013PTC252294

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1947PTC000501

Company & Directors' Information:- V S L SUGARS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15424KA2009PTC051445

Company & Directors' Information:- A V K INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100KA2012PTC066761

Company & Directors' Information:- S V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27104WB1960PTC024715

Company & Directors' Information:- J INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101OR1960PTC000388

Company & Directors' Information:- COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1958PLC023756

Company & Directors' Information:- T & M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1956PLC002904

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51109BR1946PTC000228

Company & Directors' Information:- SUGAR CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1920PTC000754

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1946PTC005438

    W.P.No. 8481 of 2020 (GM-TEN)

    Decided On, 28 July 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN

    For the Petitioner: K.N. Phanindra, Sr. Advocate, Vaishali Hegde, Advocate. For the Respondents: Prabhuling K. Navadgi, Advocate General, R1 to R4, K.R. Roopa, HCGP, Ashok Haranahalli, Sr. Advocate, R6, Poonam Patil, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the decision of the 3rd Respondent - Cane Commissioner uploaded on 05/06/2020 in the Website of Karnataka Public Procurement Portal vide Annexure 'A', rejecting the Techinical Bid Bearing Bid No.B3862202 under tender No.Pssk/Lease/2019-20/Call-2 submitted by the petitioner for the lease of sugar Factory -Pandavapura Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Limited and etc.)

Through Video Conference:

1. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. Heard Sri K.N.Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Prabhuling K.Navadgi, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.6.

3. Aggrieved by the rejection of its bid to take respondent no.5-factory on lease, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.

4. The case of the petitioner is that bids were invited for selection of private persons to take on lease fifth respondent's sugar factory, on rehabilitate, operate and transfer (LORT) basis. The petitioner being duly qualified applied for the same. The tender was on two cover basis i.e. technical bid and the financial bid had to be enclosed in two separate covers. The technical bid would be opened first and only upon the bidder being duly qualified after the evaluation of his technical bid, the financial bid would be opened. The opening of technical bid was fixed on 04.06.2020 and the financial bid was to be opened on 05.06.2020. Respondent no.6 also had made a bid for the same. The representative of the petitioner-company was present on 04.06.2020 at the office of respondent no.3. However, no bid was opened on 04.06.2020 in the presence of the representative of petitioner-company nor any intimation was given to him about the same. The financial bid was scheduled to be opened on 05.06.2020. In the entire forenoon of 05.06.2020, the same was not opened and the petitioner was kept in dark. However, on 05.06.2020 itself, the petitioner learnt by way of TV interview of one Mr. Murugesh Nirani of respondent no.6- company that respondent no.6 has been successful in the bid. It was only in the later part of 05.06.2020, E-portal of public procurement displayed that the tender of the petitioner has been rejected.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted its representations on 06.06.2020 and 08.06.2020 to first and third respondents setting out its grievances by specifically stating that the technical bid was to be opened on 04.06.2020 in the presence of the bidder and the result had to be uploaded on the E-portal of Karnataka Public Procurement on the same day. However, the same has not been done and it is only in the afternoon of 05.06.2020, E- portal showed that its bid was rejected without assigning any reasons. Hence, the petitioner by the said representations sought interference of the concerned officers to recall the tender process and declare the same as null and void and to call for fresh tender. It also sought for reasons for rejection of its technical bid. Upon enquiry, the petitioner also learnt that technical and financial bids of respondent no.6 was accepted and the same was placed before Government for approval. No reasons for rejection of technical bid of the petitioner was furnished nor any details as to time, date and place where the financial and technical bids were opened was furnished.

6. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that its bid was rejected to favour respondent no.6, who is an influential person and a member of the ruling party. It contends that the Government acted in a hurried manner to award the tender to sixth respondent. Aggrieved by the action of respondent nos.1 to 4 in rejecting its technical bid, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order rejecting its bid and also a writ of mandamus directing respondent nos.1 to 5 to recall the entire tender process and to call for fresh tender for lease of respondent no.5-factory.

7. The grounds raised by the petitioner in support of its contentions are as under:

(a) As per Rule 18(2) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 (for short 'the Rules') and also as per condition no.3.14 of the tender document, the technical bid ought to have opened in the presence of the bidder or its representative and any person who has uploaded the bid is entitled to attend the opening of the bids or send his/its authorized representative. In the instant case, even though petitioner's representative was present, the technical bid was not opened in his presence.

(b) Rule 18(1) of the Rules stipulates that all tenders received by tender accepting authority shall be opened at the time specified in the notice inviting tenders. Rule 19 of the Rules stipulates the procedure to be followed and Rule 19(f) specifically stipulates that minutes of the tender opening shall be recorded and the signatures of the tenderers present shall be obtained. In the present case, though the representative of the petitioner- company was present on 04.06.2020, the technical bid was neither opened nor any result was uploaded in the website on 04.06.2020 but the technical bid was allegedly opened in the absence of the tenderer on 05.06.2020 and the result was uploaded on 05.06.2020.

(c) The decision rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner at Annexure-A to the writ petition which was hosted on E-portal does not contain any reasons for the rejection. The rejection has been done by tender inviting authority and not the tender accepting authority. Thus, it is in violation of Rules 25, 26 and 28 of the Rules. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in South India Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. v. KPCL, Bangalore [2016(2) Kar. L.J. 132].

(d) One of the conditions of the tender notification is that the bidder who has not successfully operated a co-operative sugar factory on LROT basis in the State of Karnataka is not eligible and respondent no.6 has not operated any such sugar factory and hence its bid could not have been accepted.

(e) The entire tender process was done in a hurried manner with the sole objective of favouring sixth respondent and the bid of respondent no.6 has been accepted erroneously.

8. Per contra, respondent nos.1 to 4 and 6 have filed their objections. Respondent no.5, though duly served, has remained unrepresented.

9. Respondent nos.1 to 4 contend that Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 ('the Act' for short) read with Rule 29 of the Rules provides for an appeal and the petitioner having not invoked the said provisions cannot maintain the writ petition.

10. It is contended that tender proceedings are completed and sugar factory is already leased in favour of successful bidder pursuant to the tender proceedings. The final outcome of the tender proceedings and the consequential action are not under challenge and hence the writ petition has to be dismissed.

11. It is also contended that Rule 18(2) of the Rules as it stands after its amendment does not contemplate the tender being opened in the presence of the petitioner's representative. The bid has been opened in accordance with law on 04.06.2020 itself and the petitioner has not been discriminated against. What is hosted on E-portal which is produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition is only the result after evaluation of the tenders wherein the petitioner's bid has been rejected. The reasons for rejection has been duly recorded and is made available. The bid of the petitioner has been rejected because Indian Overseas Bank in its communication dated 18.05.2020 has mentioned that the petitioner's account is NPA since 16.11.2016. This indicates that the petitioner does not have backing of financial institutions. Respondent nos.1 to 4 further submitted that the petitioner had taken a sugar factory at Aland on LROT basis and they have not been successful in operating the same. They have committed default in payment of lease rents for the years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2019-20. It is further contended that as per the agreement, the petitioner was required to install a distillery unit of 30 KLPD within a period of five years. However, even after ten years, they have not installed the distillery unit. Hence, they are not successful in operating the co-operative sugar factory taken on LROT basis and hence, their bid has been rejected.

12. Respondent nos.1 to 4 further contended that the tender inviting authority is respondent no.5 and as per the Rules, a technical committee is formed to evaluate the tenders which is headed by respondent no.3. The said Committee after arriving at a decision recommended the same to the Government and the said recommendation has been accepted by the Government which is the tender accepting authority and there is no irregularity in the same.

13. The attention of this Court is drawn to the recommendations made by respondent no.3 to the Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, State of Karnataka and the proceedings of Government of Karnataka which accepts the recommendations and decides to accept the bid of respondent no.6 by its order dated 04.07.2020.

14. Respondent nos.1 to 4 also referred to clause 6.3 and 6.7 in the tender notification which read as under:

"6.3 The bidder must have experience of running a sugar or distillery or co-gen industry for at least 5 years.

6.7 The bidder who has not successfully operated the co-operative sugar factories under LROT lease in the state of Karnataka is not eligible."

15. It is contended that what is contemplated in the tender notification is that the bidder must have an experience of running a sugar or distillery or co-gen industry for alteast 5 years and in case if the bidder is operating a co-operative sugar factory under LROT basis in State of Karnataka, such bidder who is not successful in operating the same is not eligible. It is not that bidder has to necessarily operate the sugar industry on LROT basis. In the instant case, respondent no.6 is not operating any sugar industry on LROT basis in the State of Karnataka whereas the petitioner is operating a co-operative sugar industry in State of Karnataka at Aland and has been unsuccessful in doing so.

16. Respondent nos.1 to 4 further contend that there has been no malafides or favourtism shown to respondent no.6 and respondent no.6 incidentally happens to be from the ruling party and it cannot be a ground for allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

17. The entire bid process has been done as contemplated in law and that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice or fundamental rights of the petitioner. It is purely commercial transaction. Respondent nos.1 to 4 have relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R Construction Ltd. And Others [(1999)1 SCC 492] and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others [(2007)14 SCC 517] in this regard.

18. Respondent no.6 has also filed its objections. It adopts the arguments canvassed by respondent nos.1 to 4. Apart from that, it is contended that the writ petition pertains to rejection of the bid of the petitioner and not regarding accepting the bid of respondent no.6. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner needs to limit its arguments to its cause and cannot take up a contention that respondent no.6 is not qualified to make the bid. It is contended that even otherwise, respondent no.6 is duly qualified and has been rightly awarded the contract. For the aforementioned reasons, respondent nos.1 to 4 and 6 pray that the writ petition be dismissed.

19. Section 16(1) of the Act reads as under:

"16. Appeal.-(1) Any tenderer aggrieved by an order passed by the Tender Accepting Authority other than the Government under Section 13 may appeal to the prescribed authority within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the order:

Rule 29 of the Rules reads as under:

"29. Appeal.-(1) An Appeal under Section 16 shall lie -

(a) to the Head of the Department concerned if the order is passed by a Tender Accepting Authority subordinate to the Head of the Department;

(b) to the Government if the order is passed by a Tender Accepting Authority which is Head of the Department, or a local authority or a State Government undertaking or a Board, Body, Corporation or any other authority owned or controlled by the Government.

(2) The aggrieved tenderer shall submit online appeal within specified period to the Appellate Authority specified in Tender Schedule through the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal."

20. While arguing the matter the learned Advocate General, on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, fairly conceded as the tender accepting authority is the Government, the writ petition is maintainable.

21. Rule 18 of the Rules reads as under:

"18. Opening of Tenders.- The Tender inviting Authority or representative can open tender in the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal at the designated date and time, without requiring the presence of bidders."

It has been amended with effect from 07.09.2019. Accordingly, the tender inviting authority can open the bid without requiring the presence of the bidder. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the technical bid ought to have been opened in the presence of its representative is not acceptable. Clause 3.14 of the tender notification stipulates that any person who has uploaded the bid shall be entitled to attend the opening of the bids or send its authorized representative. The petitioner contends that even though its representative was present, the same was not opened in his presence and was not opened on 04.06.2020. On the contrary, respondent nos.1 to 4 have contended that the same was opened on 04.06.2020 itself as contemplated in the tender document but it was web- hosted on 05.06.2020. The documents produced by respondent nos.1 to 4 clearly indicates that the bid was opened on 04.06.2020 itself as specified in the tender document. Further, it is noticed that reasons have been given as to why the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected and the technical bid of respondent no.6 has been accepted. The same has been made available to the concerned parties. Under the said circumstances, even presuming the tender was not opened in the presence of the authorized representative of the petitioner, that alone cannot be a ground for setting aside the entire tender process.

22. The contention of the petitioner that Rule 19(f) of the Rules specifically stipulates that the minutes of tender opening shall be recorded and the signature of tenderers present shall be obtained cannot be a ground as Rule 19(f) of the Rules has since been deleted with effect from 07.09.2019.

23. The petitioner has further contended that the tender inviting authority has rejected its bid, which is erroneous. It is noticed from the records that respondent no.5 is the tender inviting authority and the bid has been evaluated and rejected by respondent no.3 which headed the Committee for evaluation of tenders constituted by respondent no.1-State of Karnataka and the same has been placed before respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 has accepted the said recommendations.

24. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in South India Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. v. KPCL, Bangalore [2016(2) Kar. L.J. 132] to state that the rejection of its tender has not been done by proper authority. Paragraphs 10 and 12 of the said judgment read as under:

"10. If in the light of the KTPP Rules, the procedure is summarised, the acceptance or rejection of the bids ultimately can be made only by the Tender Accepting Authority. The role of the Tender Inviting Authority or the Tender Scrutiny Committee is only to analyse the tender documents submitted by the bidders, keep in view the tender conditions and find out which of the tenders satisfy the requirement. The tenders which satisfy the requirement will have to be shown as 'responsive' and those which do not satisfy the requirement as 'non-responsive'. If any other aspect requires the attention of the Tender Accepting Authority before a final decision is taken, the Tender Inviting Authority should indicate the same as 'remarks' so that the Tender Accepting Authority will apply its mind to that aspect of the matter also and take a decision in that regard.

12. The correct procedure to be followed as per the KTPP Rules is that the Tender Inviting Authority or the Tender Scrutiny Committee will open the cover, consider the technical bids of all the bidders and analyse the same in terms of Rule 24, follow the procedure under Rules 25 and 26 and place it before the Tender Accepting Authority. The rejection contemplated in sub-rule (3) to Rule 24 is to be made by the Tender Accepting Authority ultimately if the recommendation made by the Tender Inviting Authority is accepted. The rejection provided for is not to be made by the Tender Inviting Authority. Hence, the Tender Inviting Authority is required to only prepare a list of the 'responsive' and 'non- responsive' tenders with reasons for the decision so that the correctness or otherwise of their consideration and analysis will be available to the Tender Accepting Authority to take a decision with regard to acceptance or rejection. The procedure does not contemplate that the Tender Inviting Authority should send the list at the stage to the Tender Accepting Authority without opening the financial bids. On the other hand, what is contemplated under Rule 25 is that the Tender Inviting Authority will open the financial bids only of the tenders which technical bids are classified as 'responsive', prepare a list based on the price quoted and place it before the Tender Accepting Authority."

In the above judgment, while considering the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, it has been observed that the rejection provided for is not to be made by the tender inviting authority. Hence, the tender inviting authority is required to only prepare a list of the 'responsive' and 'non-responsive' tenders with reasons for the decision so that the correctness or otherwise of their consideration and analysis will be available to the tender accepting authority to take a decision with regard to acceptance or rejection.

25. Section 2(i) of the Act defines 'tender accepting authority' and 'tender inviting authority' as follows:

"Tender Accepting Authority" means an officer or a Committee appointed to accept tenders and a "Tender Inviting Authority" means an officer or a Committee appointed to invite tenders, under Section 9;

26. Section 10 of the Act and Rule 20 of the Rules provides for the tender accepting authority to constitute a tender scrutiny committee. Section 11 refers to opening of tenders wherein either the tender inviting authority or the tender accepting authority as authorized by the procurement entity open the tenders and draw up a list of tenderers responding to the notice inviting tender. Section 12(3) of the Act reads as under:

"S.12(3) The Tender Inviting Authority shall collect all the details received in response to the notice inviting tender, within the time stipulated and unless it is itself authorized to open the tender shall compile and forward all the tenders received to the Authority or Officer authorised to open the tenders."

27. Section 13 and Rule 26(2A) empowers the tender accepting authority to pass order accepting the tender after following such procedure as may be prescribed.

28. In the instant case, the tender inviting authority is respondent no.5. Respondent no.3 is entrusted with the responsibility of scrutinizing the tenders. Respondent no.3 has scrutinized the tenders and with his opinion has placed it before respondent no.1-State of Karnataka. Respondent no.1 has accepted the decision of respondent no.3 and has passed the order dated 04.07.2020 by which the contract has been awarded in favour of respondent no.6.

29. Annexure-R7 filed along with the statement of objections of respondent nos.1 to 4 is the proceedings of meeting held on 04.06.2020 to consider the technical bids. It records that the account of the petitioner has been considered as NPA by Indian Overseas Bank by its communication dated 18.05.2020 since 16.11.2016. It also records that the petitioner has committed default in the payment of lease rents for the years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2019-20 in respect of co-operative sugar factory taken on lease on LROT basis in the State of Karnataka at Aland which is in violation of Clause 6.7 of tender notification which states that the bidder who has not successfully operated the co-operative sugar factories under LROT lease in the State of Karnataka is not eligible. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that its account has been considered NPA by Indian Overseas Bank and that there has been default committed in payment of lease rents. It however contends that there are cases pending regarding the same and hence the same cannot be considered.

30. The case on hand is one of commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. In the instant case, the State will have to be convinced that the person to whom the contract has been awarded is financially sound and will be in a position to run the factory and pay its dues successfully. Admittedly, the petitioner has committed default in payment of lease rents in respect of similarly situated factory and one of its bankers has made its account NPA. Under the said circumstances, the State cannot be faulted for rejecting the bid of the petitioner herein.

31. The power of Courts in reviewing the decision taken in commercial transactions is very limited. In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others [(2007)14 SCC 517] at paragraph 22 it has been held as under:

"22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judical review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:

(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;

Or

Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordanc

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e with relevant law could have reached"; (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licenses, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action." 32. Similarly, in Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. And Others [(1999)1 SCC 492] at para 11 it has been held as under: "11. When a writ petition is filed in the High Court challenging the award of a contract by a public authority or the State, the court must be satisfied that there is some element of public interest involved in entertaining such a petition. If, for example, the dispute is purely between two tenderers, the court must be very careful to see if there is any element of public interest involved in the litigation. A mere difference in the prices offered by the two tenderers may or may not be decisive in deciding whether any public interest is involved in intervening in such a commercial transaction. It is important to bear in mind that by court intervention, the proposed project may be considerably delayed thus escalating the cost far more than any saving which the court would ultimately effect in public money by deciding the dispute in favour of one tenderer or the other tenderer. Therefore, unless the court is satisfied that there is a substantial amount of public interest, or the transaction is entered into mala fide, the court should not intervene under article 226 in disputes between two rival tenderers." 33. This is a case wherein the rights of the petitioner is sought to be addressed. There is no public interest involved. It is purely a commercial transaction and a contractual dispute. The action of respondent nos.1 to 5, based on the records produced, does not indicate any arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias or malafides. The procedure adopted has been transparent and as contemplated under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 and the Rules thereunder. 34. Because respondent no.6 belongs to a person from ruling party and is a influential person, it does not mean that it should not be awarded any contract. The allegation of the petitioner regarding malafides and favourtisim shown to respondent no.6 is not supported by any proof. Under the said circumstances, the same is not acceptable. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

16-10-2020 Mahesh J. Biliye @ Mahesh Biliye Versus Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
15-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Collections & Another Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-10-2020 Shantabai Laxman Doiphode Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Industries & Labour Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
14-10-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka (Central), Bangalore Versus Sadiq Sheikh In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
09-10-2020 Dr. B.S. Ravikumar Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Collegiate Education), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
09-10-2020 Environmental Health & Safety Research & Development Centre (EHSRDC), Through its Managing Director, Bangalore & Others Versus Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB), Through its Member Secretary, Bangalore & Others National Green Tribunal Southern Zone Chennai
08-10-2020 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore & Another Versus M/s. Jundal Aluminium Limited, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
08-10-2020 Chand Pasha @ Chanda Versus State by Sargur Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
08-10-2020 C. Rajakumari & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Industries (MIA), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-10-2020 Yathish Kumar @ Yathish Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
06-10-2020 Small Industries Development Bank of India, Chennai & Others Versus Creation Investments Equitas Holdings LLC A wholly owned subsidiary of Creation Investments Social Ventures Fund II LP, United States of America & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2020 A. Mohammed Ataulla & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by the SPP, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Bayer New Zealand Limited Versus Ministry For Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
29-09-2020 Alok Industries Limited Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
28-09-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka (Central) Bangalore, Controlling Office of Central Circle, Panaji Versus M/s. Mukhtar Minerals Private Limited In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
25-09-2020 B.K. Naveenkumar Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by SPP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
25-09-2020 Somashekara & Another Versus State by Range Forest Officer, Represented by SPP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 Rajegowda @ Guruswamy & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Dr. B. Chandrashekara Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Education Department (Collegiate Education), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
16-09-2020 R. Pradeep Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 Makdum @ Makdum Shariff Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by HCGP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Lokesh @ Kuniya Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by SPP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Zameer Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
11-09-2020 M/s. S.M. Cement Industries Rep. By One of Its Partners Namely, Manoj Sureka, Assam Versus Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Versus M/s. Radhika Oil Industries, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Shashirekha Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by Hulimavu Police Station, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
08-09-2020 Thippanna & Another Versus State by Masthi Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
08-09-2020 M/s. Bangalore Club Versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax & Another Supreme Court of India
07-09-2020 Anthosh Kumar Bavara Versus State of Karnataka by Inspector of Police, Represented by High Court Govt. Pleader, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 Joe Abraham Mathews Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by SPP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 Philip Stephen Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-09-2020 MS Industries & Spirits (P) Ltd. Versus M/s. Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd. High Court of for the State of Telangana
01-09-2020 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore & Another Versus M/s. Rajmahal Silks Partnership Firm, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
31-08-2020 M/s. AAF India Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Jagruti Mursenia Versus M/s. KBR Industries, Represented by its Partner High Court of Karnataka
31-08-2020 M/s. Kaveri Associates, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Rishabchand Bhansali Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(1), Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
31-08-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore-III & Another Versus Vinay Mishra High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Pradeepa Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Ganesh Poojary Versus State by Bajpe Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Praveena @ Itachi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Kamakshipalya Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Master Vinay Bharadwaj, Rep. by his Father & Natural Guardian D.R. Shivakumar Versus M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 R. Hemanth Kumar Versus State of Karnataka by Chamarajpet Police, (Represented by Learned State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 Sujatha & Others Versus State of Karnataka Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
25-08-2020 The Deputy General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Coimbatore & Another Versus M/s. Annamalai Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, P. Velusamy, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 The Director of Income-Tax International Taxation, Bangalore & Another Versus The Executive Engineer, M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
20-08-2020 K. Manikkan, Railway Liason Officer, Malabar Cements Limited, Walayar Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary, Industries (H) Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-08-2020 L. Ahmed Abdul Razack Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-08-2020 Premchand Jute & Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus The Employees State Insurance Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-08-2020 M/S Anjaneya Bisanpur Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Dilawar Singh Rawat & Another High Court of Delhi
17-08-2020 M/s. Elpe Labs, "Sree Harikunj", Represented by its Proprietor, H.C. Verma, Bangalore Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Commissionerate, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-08-2020 Vinod Ramnani & Another Versus Station House Officer C.B.I./A.C.B/Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
13-08-2020 K. Janardhanam Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
12-08-2020 Krishnamoorthy & Another Versus Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Periyasevalai, Rep. by its Special Officer & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 Madhukumar @ Maribond Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
11-08-2020 Mohammed Safwan @ Datta Safwan Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
06-08-2020 Ranga Reddy Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
06-08-2020 Rajiv Bal Versus Harrison Industries, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-08-2020 Dinesh Shetty & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
06-08-2020 Union of India, Represented by its Secretary Ministry of Defence, New Delh & Another Versus Bangalore North Taluk Public Greivances Committee, Represented by its President, C. Subbanna & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-08-2020 Suresh & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
05-08-2020 Dayananda @ Daya Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
04-08-2020 R.V. Granites, rep. by its Managing Partner S. Padmavathi Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Mines.II) Department Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
04-08-2020 Basavaraju @ Basava Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
04-08-2020 ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Shailendra Singh Versus M/s. Vittal Cashew Industries, Represented by its Partner H. Ganesh Kamath & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-08-2020 Dananjaya Versus State by Dobbespet Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2020 Shantkumar & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by Chief SecretaryVidhana Soudha, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
30-07-2020 Sagar @ Saagi & Another Versus State of Karnataka by, Represented by the Learned State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2020 Bhagyamma Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sheshadripuram Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
28-07-2020 Dr. Uma Suresh Versus The Authorised Officer, The National Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
24-07-2020 Narasimharao @ Appi & Others Versus State of Karnataka by Turuvekere Police Station, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
23-07-2020 Syed Javeed Versus Banashankari Police Station, Represented by SPP, Bangalore 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 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 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-07-2020 N.M. Chandrashekar Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Santhosha Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Terracon Projects, Represented by its Proprietor S.V. Babu Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Rep. by its Authorised representative Goregaon Mumbai Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-07-2020 Radhakrishna Reddy & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
13-07-2020 Koti Lingaiah & Another Versus State of Karnataka by, Rep. by Govt. Pleader, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 M/s. Durga Fabrication Works, Represented by its Proprietor, Prakash Ramu Rathod Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-07-2020 Mohsin @ Syed Mohsin Versus State of Karnataka, Rept. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2020 Mohammed Farooq & Another Versus State by P.S. Devarjeevana Halli, Represented by The State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2020 N. Yashwant Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by SPP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
02-07-2020 S. Murthy, Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Bangalore Versus The Special Board, Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-07-2020 C.L. Satish Babu & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Dept of Rural Development & Panchayath Raj, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
30-06-2020 The Bengal Chamber of Commerce & Industry & Another Versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-06-2020 Leelavathi & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Chief Secretary, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
25-06-2020 H. Karan Kumar Versus The State Government of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
25-06-2020 Rahul Mehra @ Daddu Versus State of Karnataka, State by Ramanagara Rural Police, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 Tanveer Ahmed Versus State Women Police Station, Rep. State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
19-06-2020 Prakasha Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
19-06-2020 Ragavendra Versus State of Karnataka, Representd by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
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
17-06-2020 Vinayaka @ Vinod Versus State by Kamakshipalya Ps., Represented by S.P.P., Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
17-06-2020 Santhosh Thazhathu Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Bangalore Urban Dist. Panchayati, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
17-06-2020 D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi Versus Jasmeet Walia & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Shambu Babu Giri Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
11-06-2020 Prakash Industries Limited. Versus Bengal Energy Limited. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-06-2020 Noorualla Sharif Versus The State of Karnataka, Reptd. by High Court Govt Pleader, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka