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



North Delhi Municipal Corporation v/s Ravi Builders


Company & Directors' Information:- A.T. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100CT2009PTC021517

Company & Directors' Information:- RAVI AND COMPANY LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U74300JK1997PLC001627

Company & Directors' Information:- RAVI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC023128

Company & Directors' Information:- J BUILDERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45200MH1982PTC027086

Company & Directors' Information:- BUILDERS CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U26921WB1959PTC024088

    O.M.P. (COMM). No. 207 of 2016

    Decided On, 19 July 2018

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

    For the Petitioner: Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel, Supreet Bimbra, Mayank Goel, Advocates. For the Respondent: Moni Cinmoy, Arvind Kr. Pandey, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award dated 16.03.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to Work Order No.EE (Br.)/II/TC/99 dated 19.01.2007 relating to construction of Storm Water Drainage System and Footpath as per work of improvement and strengthening of Sarai Phoose Road starting from Burf Khana Chowk to Daffrin Bridge Crossing in Civil Line Zone.

2. The Work Order mentioned the contractual amount of the work as Rs.1,40,00,050/-. The stipulated time for completion of work was fifteen months starting from 28.01.2007. The work was finally completed by 30.09.2009.

3. The Arbitrator in his Impugned Award has awarded the following claims in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner:-

'(i) Claim no. 1 : Payment of alleged Final Bill : Rs.26,96,636/-

(ii) Claim no. 4 : Escalation under Clause 10CC : Rs.16,83,902/-

(iii) Claim No.5 : Refund of Earnest Money / Security Deposit : Rs.10,29,884/-

(iv) Claim No.6 : Interest on Rs.54,10,422/- (aggregate of claim no.l, claim no.4 and claim no.5) @ 10% p.a. from 1.4.2010 till the date of filing of claims dt 4.5.2013 (37 months): Rs.l6,68,213/-

(v) Claim no.7 : Interest on Rs.70,78,635/- (aggregate of claim no.1, claim no.4, claim no.5 and claim no.6) @ 10% p.a. from 4.5.2013 till 16.3.2015 (23 months) : Rs.13,56,738/-

(vi) Claim no.8: Arbitration cost: Rs.2,00,000/-.'

4. The objection of the petitioner against the Impugned Award is that there was no Arbitration Agreement in existence between the parties and therefore, the award has been passed without jurisdiction. In this regard it has placed reliance on a Circular dated 11.12.2006 issued by the MCD, Engineering Department, communicating the decision of deletion of arbitration clause in all future Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT)issued by the MCD.

5. In the present case the NIT was issued by the petitioner on 20.05.2006, that is prior to the date of issuance of the said Circular and admittedly the NIT was published making reference to the Terms and Conditions, which included the arbitration clause. The Work Order issued to the respondent made the Terms and Conditions of the NIT applicable to the contract and therefore, the Arbitration Agreement equally applied. The petitioner cannot unilaterally amend the terms and conditions of this contract by way of the Circular dated 11.12.2006. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 597, Supreme Court held that:

'If the parties were ad idem as regards terms of the contract, any change in the tariff could not have been made unilaterally. Any novation in the contract was required to be done on the same terms as are required for entering into a valid and concluded contract. Such an exercise having not been resorted to, we are of the opinion, that no interference with the impugned judgment is called for.'

6. In any case, a reading of the Circular does not suggest that it will apply retrospectively to concluded contracts.

7. I therefore, do not find any merit in the objection raised by the petitioner.

8. On the merits of the Award, the petitioner challenges the award of Rs.26,96,636/- on Claim no. 1 by contending that while the Work Order stipulated the contractual amount as Rs.1,40,00,50/-, admittedly an amount of Rs.1,39,97,156/- had been paid by the petitioner to the respondent with the payment of 6th Running Account Bill (RA Bill) on 31.03.2010. It is submitted that with this payment, full and final payment for all work done by the respondent pursuant to the Work Order had been duly made by the petitioner and therefore, the Arbitrator has erred in awarding further amounts under Claim no. 1. It is further submitted that the respondent had not led any evidence in support of this Claim and therefore, the Arbitrator could not have granted the same in the favour of the respondent.

9. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, however, I am unable to agree with the same. The Arbitrator has recorded that the 6th RA Bill was raised on 14.09.2009 and had measured the work done till the end of the second week of July 2009. The work was completed by the respondent, as noted above, on 30.09.2009. Therefore, the 6th RA Bill did not contain the work done between the end of the second week of July 2009 (when the measurement for 6th RA Bill was taken) till 30.09.2009. The 6th RA Bill therefore, cannot be considered as the final bill in terms of Clause 9 of the Agreement between the parties which makes a distinction between the running bill and the final bill.

10. As far as the evidence in proof of the claim and the finding is concerned, the respondent had filed an application under Section 24(3) of the Act seeking production of the Measurement Book which had duly recorded the measurements taken by the parties contemporaneous with the execution of the work. The Measurement Book was not produced by the petitioner and therefore, the Arbitrator has drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner on this account. Even the 'Site Order Book' which was produced by the petitioner was found not to contain the purported instructions given by the Site Engineer of the petitioner to the respondent and was completely blank. The Arbitrator, therefore, held as under:-

'46. It may be noted that neither the 'scope of work' nor the 'schedule of quantities' has been produced by the respondent on record of this Tribunal. Had the scope of work and the schedule of quantities would have been filed, it could probably be used in ascertaining the work actually carried out at the site. The fact remains that as per testimony of RW -2 the payment made to the claimant up to the 6th RA bill was only in regard to the work till the stage of lean concrete work. As per the work order dated 19/01/2007 the claimant was also required to construct footpath with interlocking tiles on both sides of the carriageway on a stretch of almost 2 kilometres between Burfkhana Chowk and Daffrin Bridge. In the course of oral hearing the Ld Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had no option but to agree that the said work of footpath could have been possible only after the work of lean concrete was over. The very fact that the claimant was paid almost the entire contractual amount up to the 6th R A Bill pertaining to work till the stage of lean concrete shows that the quantities of work must have exceeded over and above the quantities initially worked out/ estimated at the time of getting the financial approval. Indeed, a variation (plus or minus) up to 10% of the awarded work is invariably admissible in construction contracts and does not require any further sanction or approval from the concerned authorities. However, in the present case, as per the final bill dated 03/12/2009, the variation appears to be around 18% above the contractual amount. In the opinion of this Tribunal the claimant cannot be made to suffer for want of requisite permission, required if any because it is evident from the evidence on record that the respondent has played the game of hide and seek and has withheld the best evidence from the Tribunal in its possession in regard to the actual work done by the claimant at the site. Thus the mere acceptance of the R A bills by the claimant is of no consequence, either legal or factual, on his claims arising out of the contract in the present case.

47. From the above discussion, it stands amply proved that the payment received by the claimant against his 6th RA Bill was not accepted by him as final payment for the entire work done by him at the site. It is further proved that the final bill dated 03.12.2009 (Ex.CW-1/11 Colly) was submitted by the claimant to the respondent within three months of the completion of work on 30.09.2009 in terms of Clause 9 of the agreement and that the payment against the final bill dated 03.12.2009 was not made by the respondent till date although the work mentioned in the details annexed therewith was executed by the claimant at site. Hence the claimant is held entitled to an amount of Rs.26,96,636/- from the respondent against his final bill dated 03.12.2009. These issues are decided accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the respondent.'

11. The above being an appreciation of evidence led by the parties before the Arbitrator, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 34 of the Act cannot sit as a Court of appeal against the same and re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion. In any case, the reason given by the Arbitrator for allowing the said claim cannot be considered to be unreasonable or perverse in any manner so as to warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 34 of the Act.

12. The next objection taken by the petitioner against the Award is to the grant of Rs.16,83,902/- in favour of the respondent as escalation under Clause 10 CC of the Agreement. The counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause 10 CC was specifically deleted from the Agreement executed between the parties by striking it out from the printed documents of the General Terms and Conditions. He further submits that in any case Clause 10 CC would not be applicable to the contract in question as the contractual period was less than eighteen months and in terms of Clause 32.8.2 of the CPWD manual, Clause 10 CC has been made inapplicable to all the contracts where the stipulated period for completion is eighteen months or less. He further submits that the claim of the respondent was in the nature of damages which had to be proved by the respondent under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. He submits that the Arbitrator has considered the evidence led by the respondent towards its claim for escalation on account of labour, but, has rejected the same having found that the escalation in the Minimum Wages had no effect on the wages being paid by the respondent to its labour. At the same time, the Arbitrator did not conduct this exercise for the claim of the respondent towards escalation relating to the material charges. He submits that the claim awarded by the Arbitrator is therefore, without evidence and is liable to be set aside. He further relies on Clause 14 of the 'General Conditions' which stipulates that the Contractors will have no claim in case of delay by the department in removal of telephone or electric lines, both overhead as also underground. He submits that in the present case the respondent has pleaded hindrance / delay in removal of the underground telephone and electric cables and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to maintain any claim of escalation on this account.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that Clause 10 CC, even assuming that it has been deleted from the contract, gives a general formula for calculation of damages in case of extension of the contractual period due to delay attributable to the owner. He submits that the Arbitrator was therefore right in adopting this formula. As far as the evidence is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that all supporting documents showing the increase in material cost have been submitted by the respondent to the petitioner alongwith its Running Bills and as they were not produced by the petitioner, in spite of an application being moved, an adverse inference should be drawn against the petitioner in this regard. As far as Clause 14 of the 'General Conditions' is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the same were not duly proved before the Arbitrator. The document containing this term was simply filed in response to the direction of the Arbitrator to produce documents sought for by the respondent in its application under Section 24(3) of the Act, however, in this application this document was not sought for. As this document was not referred to in the evidence filed by the witnesses produced by the petitioner, the same could not have been relied upon.

14. I have considered the submissions made by the counsels for the parties. As far as deletion of Clause 10 CC from the Contract is concerned, the Arbitrator in his Impugned Award has accepted the same in paragraph 50, which is reproduced herein below:-

'50. Since a policy decision that clause 10 CC would apply only to those agreements where the time for completion of work stipulated in the agreement exceeds 18 months was taken by the respondent prior to the issuance of NIT in the present case, this arbitral tribunal is of the view that the said policy decision would bind the claimant also notwithstanding whether clause 10 CC was actually deleted from the agreement or not, more so when the claimant on his own witness No. 1 and CW-4 Mr. J. M. Puri, Former Superintending Engineer with the M.C.D. say in their respective cross that clause 10 CC is applicable only to those construction contracts where the time for completion stipulated in the contract exceeds 18 months.'

15. The Arbitrator, however, still makes the said Clause applicable by stating that as this Clause gives a general formula for calculating a claim of escalation in prices, the same can be applied to the facts of the case. In my view, once the parties specifically delete the term of a printed form of document, effect has to be given to such deletion. In interpreting the Contract the intention of the parties is paramount. Such intention in the present case was expressed by the parties by deleting Clause 10 CC from the Contract and the same could not have been reintroduced by the Arbitrator through the back door by applying it as a general principle. It is a different thing to say that if an agreement is silent, Clause 10 CC may still be applied as general principle of law by the Arbitrator and implied into the contract, however, when this Clause has been specifically deleted, it cannot be reintroduced in the contract in form of an implied term.

16. In Nabha Power Ltd. (NPL) v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL) & Anr. (2018) 11 SCC 508, Supreme Court laid down the principles for interpreting the terms of a commercial contract in the following words:

'49. We now proceed to apply the aforesaid principles which have evolved for interpreting the terms of a commercial contract in question. Parties indulging in commerce act in a commercial sense. It is this ground rule which is the basis of The Moorcock test of giving 'business efficacy' to the transaction, as must have been intended at all events by both business parties. The development of law saw the 'five condition test' for an implied condition to be read into the contract including the 'business efficacy' test. . It also sought to incorporate 'the Officious Bystander Test' [Shirlaw v. Southern Foundries Ltd. (1926]. This test has been set out in B.P.Refinery (Westernport) Proprietary Ltd. v. Shire of Hastings requiring the requisite conditions to be satisfied: (1) reasonable and equitable; (2) necessary to give business efficacy to the contract; (3) it goes without saying i.e. the Officious Bystander Test; (4) capable of clear expression; and (5) must not contradict any express term of the contract. The same penta-principles find reference also in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. v. West Bromwich Building Society and Attorney General of Belize v. Belize Telecom Ltd. Needless to say that the application of these principles would not be to substitute this Court’s own view of the presumed understanding of commercial terms by the parties if the terms are explicit in their expression. The explicit terms of a contract are always the final word with regard to the intention of the parties. The multi-clause contract inter se the parties has, thus, to be understood and interpreted in a manner that any view, on a particular clause of the contract, should not do violence to another part of the contract.'

17. Therefore, in view of express deletion of Clause 10 CC, there was no warrant for the arbitrator to have reintroduced the same by implication.

18. As far as the application of Clause 10 CC is concerned, the Arbitrator also finds the same not to be applicable towards the claim of the respondent on account of increase in wages. The Arbitrator considered the evidence led by the respondent in support of its claim and found that from the muster roll / labour register it was evident that the respondent has not suffered any loss due to increase in wages. However, the Arbitrator did not conduct similar exercise for the claim made by the respondent on account of alleged increase in cost of material and simply applied a 25% deduction from the amount that would be arrived under Clause 10 CC. Therefore, even the Impugned Award applies Clause 10 CC selectively and in a partial manner.

19. As the claim made by the respondent was one of damages, it was for the respondent to prove the same by leading evidence in support of the claim of increase in cost of material. The respondent cannot support its claim by relying upon the lack of evidence led by the petitioner. The claimant has to stand on its own legs and support its own claims.

20. In Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49, the Supreme Court reiterated that if a finding of the Arbitral Tribunal is based on no evidence, it would warrant an interference by the Court under Section 34 of the Act, being in contravention with the Fundamental Policy of Indian Law.

21. As far as the applicability of Clause 14 of the 'General Conditions' is concerned, I find that the same does not find any mention in the Impugned Award. The Arbitrator has not given any reason for rejecting the application of the same though it was specifically adverted to by the petitioner in the written submissions filed by the petitioner before the Arbitrator. Clause 14 of the CPWD Manual is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'14. The contractor will not have any claim in case of delay by the department in removal of trees or shifting, raising, removing of telephone, or electric line (over head or underground) water or sewer line or any other structure, if any, which may come in the way of the work. However, suitable extension of time can be granted to cover such delays, as provided in terms of contract.'

22. The above Clause would clearly disentitle the respondent to any claim on account of delay by the petitioner in removing of telephone or electric line; the delay alleged in the present case.

23. In view of the above, the Award of damages under Claim no. 4 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.

24. The next challenge raised by the petitioner is to the award of Rs.10,29,884/- as refund of earnest money / security deposit. As noted above, the work was completed on 30.09.2009. In terms of Clause 17 of the General Terms and Conditions the security deposit was refundable after the expiry of six months from the date of completion of the work. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was to produce a clearance certificate from the labour officer for seeking release of the security deposit. However, as the respondent failed to produce the same, it was not entitled to seek such release.

25. Clause 45 of the General Conditions on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner, is reproduced below:

'CLAUSE 45

Release of security deposit after labour clearance

Security Deposit of the work shall not be refunded till the contractor produces a clearance certificate from the Labour Officer. As soon as the work is virtually complete the contractor shall supply for the clearance certificate to the Labour Officer under intimation to the Engineer-in-Charge. The Engineer-in-Charge, on receipt of the said communication, shall write to the Labour Officer to intimate if any complaint is pending against the contractor in respect of the work. If no compliant is pending, on record till after 3 months after completion of the work and/or no communication is received from the Labour Officer to this effect till six months after the date of Completion, it will be deemed to have received the clearance certificate and the security Deposit will be released if otherwise due.'

26. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, however, I do not find any merit in the same. The plea with regard to obtaining a clearance certificate relying upon Clause 45 of General Conditions was not taken before the Arbitrator. It has been contended for the first time in the petition filed before this Court. Be that as it may, before the Arbitrator till the passing of the Award and even in this petition, it is not contended that the petitioner has received any complaint either directly or through the Labour Department, with respect to non-payment or under payment of wages by the respondent. In view of the same, the objection of the petitioner against grant of Claim no.5 is rejected.

27. The petitioner also challenges the award of interest in favour of the respondent under Claim no. 6. The counsel for the petitioner relying upon Section 3(1)(b) of the Interest Act, 1978 submits that as there was no stipulation in the Contract for grant of interest in favour of the respondent / Contractor, interest would have become payable only from the date of a written notice claiming the same and not before that date. He submits as no such notice has been given, the respondent was not entitled to award of interest from 01.04.2010, that is six months from the date of completion of work.

28. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, however, I am unable to accept the same. Section 31(7)(a) of the Act empowers the Arbitrator to award interest for the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the Award is made. The Arbitrator having exercised this discretion, the Award cannot be faulted. In any case, it is admitted by the counsel for the petitioner that even this plea was not taken by the petitioner before the Arbitrator.

29. The last contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is to the award of interest pendente lite on the amount awarded under Claim no. 6 which itself was interest pre-arbitration. He submits that by including

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

this amount the Arbitrator in fact has awarded interest on interest. I find merit in the said submission of the counsel for the petitioner. In terms of Section 3(3)(c) read with Section 2(a) of the Interest Act, the Arbitrator is not empowered to award interest upon interest. In this regard, distinction between Section 31(7)(a) and 31(7)(b) is also relevant. Section 31(7) of the Act, before its amendment is reproduced hereinbelow:- '31.(7)(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, where and in so far as an arbitral award is for the payment of money, the arbitral tribunal may include in the sum for which the award is made interest, at such rate as it deems reasonable, on the whole or any part of the money, for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made. (b) A sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall, unless the award otherwise directs, carry interest at the rate of eighteen per centum per annum from the date of the award to the date of payment.' 30. It is only in Section 31(7)(b), because of use of the word 'A sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award', that the Arbitrator can award interest on interest, as held by the Supreme Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited v. Governor, State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189. Therefore, award of interest under Claim no.7 in so far as it directs payment of interest on the amount awarded under Claim no. 6 for the period from 04.05.2013 till 16.03.2015, that is pendente lite interest, cannot be sustained and is set aside. 31. As far as the objection of the petitioner to the rate of interest, this being a matter solely on the discretion of the arbitrator, the rate of interest awarded not being unreasonable and having regard to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited v. State of Orissa, (2016) 6 SCC 362, cannot be sustained. 32. In view of the above, this petition is partially allowed. The Award in so far as it relates to Claim no. 1 and Claim no. 5 is upheld. The Award with respect to Claim No.4 is set aside and consequently, Award with respect to Claim No.6 shall stand modified as the respondent would not be entitled to any interest on amount that had been awarded under Claim No.4. The Award under Claim No.7 shall also stand modified and the respondent shall not be entitled to pendente lite interest on amount awarded under Claim Nos.4 and 6. There shall be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

26-06-2020 M/s. Kuber Builders a registered partnership Versus Union of India, Through Chief Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-06-2020 Bhura @ Ravi Chaudhari Versus The State of M.P. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-06-2020 Ravi @ P. Ramakrishna Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by Learned State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
18-06-2020 M/s.Vaibhav Laxmi Builders & Developers Versus Laxmibai Chinduji Puram National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Ravi Parameswara Raja Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Chief Secretary, Secretariat Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
18-06-2020 M/s. Gurudatta Builders & Others Versus Aaron Enoch Ashtamkar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 M/s. J.S. & M.F. Builders Versus A.K. Chauhan & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2020 State of Orissa Versus M/s. B. Engineers & Builders Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
01-06-2020 Ravi Omprakash Balotiya Through Balotiya Omprakash Krishnaji Versus The Commissioner of Police High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
27-05-2020 P. Ravi Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by, State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
19-05-2020 Ravi Ranjan Giri & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
08-05-2020 Pandurang Versus Ravi High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
07-04-2020 B. Ravi Kumar Reddy & Another Versus Bhagyamma & Others High Court of Karnataka
30-03-2020 M.L. Ravi Versus Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-03-2020 State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Ravi Kumar High Court of Himachal Pradesh
18-03-2020 Ravi Versus Shanmughan & Another High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 Ravi Krishanan Mudaliyar Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
04-03-2020 Chander Kher & Others Versus Dream Works Builders Through Its Proprietor/Constituents & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
04-03-2020 Morpheus Developers Private Ltd V/S Ravi Ranjan and Others. NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
02-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Arya & Others Versus Ravi Kumar Arya & Others Supreme Court of India
02-03-2020 K. Ravi Versus The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-03-2020 Union of India, Represented by Chief Engineer, MTP (Railways), Chennai Versus B. Engineers & Builders Limited, Bhubaneswar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Sharmila Ravi Kumar Versus Chairman & Managing Director Andhra Bank, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-02-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. A.R. Builders & Developers P. Ltd., Mylapore, Chennai, PAN: AABCE3953A High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2020 M/s. Unique Omega Builders, Rep. By its Partner and Authorised Signatory P. Nalasamy Versus Mag Link Infra Projects (P) Ltd., Tamil Nadu High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2020 Manoj Kumar Versus M/s. Ganpati Builders, Through its proprietor Ritesh Tewari Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
14-02-2020 Ravi Developments, Mumbai & Others Versus Manish D. Menghani National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Mani Kant Ravi & Others Versus Coal India Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-02-2020 Ravi Rathi & Another Versus M/s Aditya Construction Company (India) Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its Director, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
11-02-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus C.R. Sons Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
07-02-2020 Ravi Raj & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-02-2020 Swastik Builders, Satyam Apartments Next to Rowell Continental (Sunny International) & Others Versus Dr. Shobha & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-02-2020 Ravi Bansal Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-01-2020 The State of Madhya Pradesh And Another V/S Ravi @ Toli Malviya & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
28-01-2020 Messrs Baf-Hira Builders Private Limited & Others Versus The Collector of Bombay Suburban District & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-01-2020 K. Ravi Kumar Versus State of Telangana & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-01-2020 S.N. Ravi Versus Geethalakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2020 Morzaria Products LLP Versus Marvel Omega Builders Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-01-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Ravi Ramlal Pardeshi & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-01-2020 M/s. R.K. Builders & Developers Versus Ramesh Prahlad Gajbhiye Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
13-01-2020 Ravi Shankar J. Bomanwar & Others V/S Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow & Others Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
09-01-2020 Janardan Narsingh Mahajan Versus Messers Makhija Vohra Builders High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-01-2020 Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through The Assistant Engineer, District-Sri Ganga Nagar Rajasthan Versus Ravi Kant National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-01-2020 ASL Builders Private Limited V/S Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Jamshedpur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
09-01-2020 Ravi Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-01-2020 State of Gujarat Through Chief Secretary & Another Versus Amber Builders Supreme Court of India
07-01-2020 M/s. Swapnil Builders & Developers Versus Iila Banerjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-01-2020 Dr. E. Ravi & Another Versus The Vice Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Open University, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-12-2019 A. Ravi Versus The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode, Namakkal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-12-2019 Sangeeta Singh Versus Ravi Ranjan Prasad Singh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
11-12-2019 Bay Home Properties Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. National Properties Builders & Developers High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-12-2019 Ravi Abrol Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
06-12-2019 Mukta Debnath Versus Dr. Ravi Meher & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
06-12-2019 C. Ravi Versus Sulochana & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 Jagjeet Singh Lyallpuri (Dead) Through Lrs. & Others Versus M/s. Unitop Apartments & Builders Limited Supreme Court of India
03-12-2019 Ravi Kumar Baldev Yadav & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-12-2019 TVL Sri Kumaran Mills, Represented by its Partner, G. Ravi, Coimbatore Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Avinashi Assessment Circle, Avinashi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-11-2019 Harbalbir Singh Bhullar Versus Altus Space Builders Pvt. Ltd. Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
27-11-2019 M/s. Refex Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Production Manager, A. Ravi Versus The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 D. Ravi Versus E. Pavithran & Another High Court of Kerala
21-11-2019 Rathnavva Ravi Shiggavi Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
20-11-2019 Raghuleela Builders Private Limited & Another Versus The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-11-2019 N.B. Thenmozhi Versus M/s. D.K. Builders, Rep. by its Proprietor, P.G. Duraiya High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-11-2019 S. Ravichandran & Others Versus Himayam Engineers & Builders, Represented by its Proprietor, P.Ramana Reddy, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-11-2019 The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited, Villupuram Versus G. Ravi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-11-2019 Machireddy Ravi Kumar Reddy Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperative Department Secretariat, Hyderabad High Court of Andhra Pradesh
01-11-2019 Mohan Ravi Versus The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 20(5) CHE, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-10-2019 Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi, Rep.by its President M.L. Ravi Versus Union of India, Rep.by Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-10-2019 Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. Versus NBCC (India) Limited Formerly Known as National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
24-10-2019 Sant Sagar Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Sagar Heights Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-10-2019 S. Ravi & Others Versus Dev Anand Vijayan, Executive Director, The Management of Sri Karthikeya Spinning & Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., Formerly known as Perur Engineering Products, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-10-2019 M/s. Teems Engineering Construction, Rep. by its Partner, G.R. Ravi, Chennai Versus The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, General Construction Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-10-2019 Ravi @ Ravinder Versus Sajjan Kumar & Others High Court of Delhi
10-10-2019 R. Ravi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep By The Chief Secretary Secretariat, Fort.St.Georg Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2019 Ravi Setia Versus Madan Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
03-10-2019 Ravi Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
03-10-2019 Skyline Builders & Developers (India) Private Limited Versus Kottayam Municipality High Court of Kerala
01-10-2019 Ravi Rangnathan Iyer & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-09-2019 The Cotton Corporation of India Limited Versus J.S. Ravi Kumar High Court of Andhra Pradesh
26-09-2019 Ajit Ravi Versus Cochin International Airport Ltd. High Court of Kerala
25-09-2019 S. Ravi Versus S. Kumaresan High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2019 Barnala Builders & Property Consultants Versus Anirudh Sood National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-09-2019 Rajnikant Ramji Shah Arihant Builders & Another Versus M/S. Arihant Tower Chs Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-09-2019 Ravi Abrol Versus State of J & K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
13-09-2019 Future Builders Co-Op Society Rep., by its President Mufaddal Javawala Versus S. Malla Reddy & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
13-09-2019 Ravi Patil Versus State of Goa, through Chief Secretary, Secretariat & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
12-09-2019 Ravi @ Ravichandran Versus State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, T. Palur Police Station, Ariyalur High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-09-2019 Samit Dutta Versus Ravi Prakash Sinha & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-08-2019 M/s. Ganesh Builders Versus Nagorao & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
21-08-2019 Narasimhamurthy Versus Suresh Chandra Gupta, Dead by his Lrs: Ravi Agarwal, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
20-08-2019 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Konchada Ravi Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-08-2019 H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. & Another Versus Ravi Kakar & Others Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
14-08-2019 Ravi Sukhdev Devra Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
05-08-2019 Mathews V. James & Another Versus Rakesh Builders Developers National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2019 Marvel Omega Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Shrihari Gokhale & Another Supreme Court of India
25-07-2019 Ravi & Others Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2019 Vijayashanthi Builders Ltd. Rep. by its Director, Alwarpet, Chennai Versus Lotus Pond Residents Welfare Association Rep. by its President, Kelambakkam, Kancheepuram District High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2019 Achintya Kumar Mondal Versus Singla Builders & Promoters Limited & Another Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
10-07-2019 Munjandira A. Ravi Versus Chathurana K. Somaiah @ Somaiah & Others High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2019 Ravi Versus State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, (Law & Order) Police Station, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box