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



Nutan Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd V/S CCE, Raipur-I


Company & Directors' Information:- NUTAN ISPAT AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106CT2002PTC015076

Company & Directors' Information:- RAIPUR ISPAT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27106WB1995PTC074259

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

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

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

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

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

    Excise Appeals Nos. 52943-52946/2015 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. RPR/EXCUS/000/COM/018/2015 dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Chattisgarh) and Final Orders Nos. 50259-50262/2018

    Decided On, 19 January 2018

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: DR. SATISH CHANDRA
    By, (PRESIDENT) & THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: B. RAVICHANDRAN
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: A.K. Prasad and P. Goel, Advocates And For Respondents: R.K. Mishra, AR



Judgment Text


1. These four appeals are against common impugned order dated 30.04.2015 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Nutan Ispat and Power Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron, M.S. Ingots and re-rolled products like angles, channels, beams, etc. M/s. Indo Lahari Bio-Power Ltd. were also engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots and their business was merged with M/s. Nutan Ispat on 1.12.2010. Based on certain information that the appellants are not discharging proper central excise duty and have indulged in unaccounted clandestine clearance of excisable goods, certain verifications were conducted by the central excise officers in December, 2011. Business and residential premises connected with the appellants were searched and stock taking was conducted of the raw materials and excisable goods and various records and private documents were recovered. Statement of various persons connected to the appellants were also recorded. On completion of the investigation, show cause notice was issued to demand and recover central excise duty from the appellant on account of clandestine clearance of excisable goods. The appellants defended their case and submitted against the proposals made in the show cause notice. The demand covered the period from July, 2010 to June, 2011. The Original Authority issued the impugned order, which is now contested before us.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted on the following lines:-

(a) The impugned order was a non-speaking one. Various legal and factual points raised by the appellant have not been dealt with by the Original Authority.

(b) The case of the Department is based on four private note books seized from the residence of Shri Sarma on 9.12.2011. In his statement given on 10.04.2012 and 11.04.2012 and also during cross examination on 19.3.2015, Shri Sarma had explained in detail about the nature and scope of such entries made in the private records. It is categorically stated that the said entries were mainly fabricated by him to take revenge against the appellant company on personal enmity.

(c) There were serious discrepancies between statutory records and seized note books. This point has been highlighted with the illustrative examples with reference to stock of iron ore, iron pellets, etc.

(d) The names of seller of raw materials and buyers of finished goods were also mentioned in the private record, which was relied upon by the department. No verification with any of these sellers/buyers have been carried out by the Revenue. Similarly, no effort was made to contact the transporters to substantiate the allegation of clandestine clearance.

(e) M.S. ingots were made from sponge iron and some scrap. The sponge iron in turn is manufactured from iron ore. Each of this process involve certain percentage of loss. The allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance of 6554 MT of M.S. Ingots is factually not tenable. The said manufacture would require at least 7335 MTs. of sponge iron as per the percentage calculation made by Revenue itself. To manufacture this quantity of sponge iron, the appellants would require 11642 MTs of iron ore even assuming the highest recovery at 63%. These figures will show that there is no evidence to such a quantity of goods having been manufactured by the appellant.

(f) Further, M.S. Ingots are only made from sponge iron. Duty cannot be demanded both on M.S. Ingots and Sponge Iron. Any duty paid on such input materials shall also be available as a cenvat credit.

(g) There is no corroboration of the details entered in the lose sheet recovered from third party. The stock taking has not been properly made. The panchnama did not mention the manner of stock taking and the Commissioner has used his personal knowledge to justify the correctness of the stock mentioned in the panchnama. The shortage, if any, of raw materials (ingots) when compared to one year production will come to hardly 0.2%. The Revenue did not examine the other parameters like electricity consumption, the expenditure incurred for manufacture in order to corroborate to unauthorized manufacture and clearance of excisable goods.

(h) A demand of Rs. 72.04 lakhs was confirmed jointly and severally against the two appellants. This is not legally sustainable.

3. Ld. AR supported the findings of the impugned order. He submitted that the searches were carried out by the officers in four different places and various incriminating documents were recovered. Shri S.V.S. Sarma was working as Director of the main appellant. The note books containing details of finished goods sold and payment received, raw materials purchased and payment. These records were maintained by Shri Sharma as per the directions of Shri Pradeep Agarwal, Director of the main appellant.

4. Ld. AR submitted that large number of entries in the private records tallied with entries in the statutory records. This indicates the admissibility of private records to form basis of clandestine unaccounted clearance wherever, the entries were not tallied with the statutory records. Ld. AR relied on the various decided cases to submit that unretracted confessional statement and private records, which were not disputed and form basis of confirmation of duty.

5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records.

6. At the outset, we note that the impugned order did not deal with all the factual and legal submission made by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. Some of the crucial point were not examined that formed the basis formed for arriving at the conclusion of clandestine manufacture and clearance, as mentioned by the appellant. To manufacture the alleged quantity of M.S. Ingots and Sponge Iron, the appellants require huge quantities of raw materials. This aspect has not been considered analytically for a finding. It is relevant to note that if the appellant manufactures un-accounted quantity of both the M.S. Ingots and Sponge Iron and Sponge Iron have been used for further manufacture of M.S. Ingots, duty cannot be confirmed on both. On reliance placed on records recovered from Shri S.V.S. Sarma, the appellants' contention is that Shri Sarma explained accounts in his statement dated 10.04.2012 and 11.04.2012 and further, during cross examination on 19.03.2015. It is not clear as to how the Original Authority preferred statement dated 19.02.2011 over the statements dated 10.04.2012 and 11.04.2012, with deposition during cross examination. The Original Authority simply records that the latter statement and deposition in cross examination are mainly to mislead the investigation.

7. In the adjudication proceedings, we note that it is important in such situation, to have independent corroboration about the reliability of such private records. If all statements and deposition during the cross examination are admittedly voluntarily made, preference for one statement ignoring other such statement and deposition during the cross examination, can be made when supported with due corroboration.

8. One other important legal issue raised by the appellant is regarding confirmation of duty demand against two appellants jointly and severally. We find that such course of action is not legally sustainable. For short payment of central excise duty, the assessee, who is liable to pay such duty has to be identified and duty demand confirmed.

9. In Golden Tobacco : 2015 (317) ELT 164 (Tribunal-Delhi), the Tribunal observed as below:-

"5. Legal issue as to whether demands can be confirmed jointly and severely was the subject matter of various decision of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to Tribunals' order in the case of Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 332 (Tri.-Chennai). Further, reference can be made to Tribunal's decision in the case of Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur : 2013 (293) E.L.T. 124 (Tri.-Del.) as also to the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision dated 13-4-2011 in the case of Commissioner v. Mahesh Harlalka vide which the Tribunal's order setting aside the impugned order of the lower authorities confi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rming the demand jointly and severely, therefore set aside and the matter was remanded, stands upheld by High Court." 10. Apart from the above infirmity, on the facts and law, we also note that the various serious discrepancies between statutory records and seized note books have been raised with specific instances by the appellants. These aspects also have not been duly considered by the Original Authority. 11. Considering the above discussions, we note that the impugned order as it stands cannot be sustained. The same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision after considering all the legal and factual issues raised by the appellant. Adequate opportunity shall be provided to the appellant to present their side of the case before a decision is arrived at. The appeals are allowed by way of remand. [Order pronounced on 19.01.2018]
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

27-07-2020 M/s. Sainath Security Force & Man Power Service, Represented by its Proprietor B.S. Mannur Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Under Secretary, Bangaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
20-07-2020 M/s. Luminous Power Technologies (P) Ltd. & Another Versus Kanwar Sain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-06-2020 Bilsy Joseph, now residing at 3743, Falkner Drive, United States of America, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder (Mother), Rosamma Joseph, Kottayam Versus Registrar of Births & Deaths, Changanassery Muncipality, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., AP. & Others Versus Kimudu Monu & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Ge Power India Ltd. Versus NHPC Limited High Court of Delhi
18-06-2020 M/s. Group 5 Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-06-2020 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Through Its Secretary/Cmd, The Mall Patiala Punjab & Others Versus Vikramjit Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Shankar Saran Versus Chairman & Managing Director Eastern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-06-2020 EHVEES, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Dealer, Manjeri, Represented by M. Muhammed Gadhafi, Power of Attorney Holder, Shoukathali Versus The District Collector, Malappuram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-06-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Versus State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited & Another Versus M/s. Srigdhaa Beverages Supreme Court of India
27-05-2020 Narayana Nayak, Represented by Special Power of Attorney Holder, S.M. Dhananjaya Versus Range Forest Officer, Hudikeri Branch, Kodagu & Another High Court of Karnataka
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
21-05-2020 The Institute of the Ursuline Franciscan Congregation, Represented by the Power of Attorney Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakf, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
15-05-2020 M/s S.M.C Power Generation Ltd, Orissa Versus Dilip Bhai Patel High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-05-2020 M/s. Suryadev Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Govind Gagoria & Another Versus M/s. Shri Govindaraja Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director, Aruppukottai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-05-2020 M/s. Bhilwara Energy Ltd. & Another Versus The Chief Secretary (Power) Government of Arunachal Pradesh Supreme Court of India
07-05-2020 State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai Versus M/s. PRP Exports, M/s. PRP Granites through its Power Agent/Partner, P. Sureshkumar Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-05-2020 Grievances Redressal Officer, M/s. Economic Times Internet Ltd., Haryana & Others Versus M/s. V.V. Minerals Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Manager & Power Agent, S. Krishnamurthy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-04-2020 M/s. PPS Enviro Power Private Limited (PPSE) Versus M/s. Pantime Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-04-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus State Tradings Corporation Of India Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
03-04-2020 Sai Wardha Power Generation Limited Versus The Tata Power Company Limited Distribution & Others Supreme Court of India
23-03-2020 Jithin, Malappuram, Represented by his Power of Attorney holder, Geetha Versus Reshma & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 M/s. Asva Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Directorate of Logistics & Another Supreme Court of India
10-03-2020 Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited V/S Gemini Power Systems High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru
06-03-2020 Pankaj Kumar Singh Versus National Thermal Power Corp Ltd. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
05-03-2020 Muthu Versus M/s. Indusind Bank Limited, Represented by its Power of Attorney R.S. Bharath, Deputy Manager – Legal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 S. Shybudheen, Rep. by his power of attorney agent, Ziauddin Ahmed Versus Reyhana Shmeem Begam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Muthu Versus M/s. Indusind Bank Limited, Represented by its Power of Attorney R.S. Bharath & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 M/s. Srex Power India Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
03-03-2020 Ansy Rajan, (Now Residing in Qatar & Represented by Power of Attorney Holder Tomas George Frederic, Kadavanthra, Kochi) & Another Versus District Collector, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
28-02-2020 Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd Having its Registered office at NDPL House, Hudson Lines, New Delhi V/S Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary, New Delhi Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
28-02-2020 M/s. S.S. Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietrix S. Sumathi, Through her power agent R. Sivaramakrishnan Versus The District Collector, Erode High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited Through its authorized signatory, New Delhi Versus NTPC Limited Through its Chairman, New Delhi & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
27-02-2020 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Represented by its Senior Manager(RS) & Power Agent, S. Gunasekaran Versus V. Sudhakar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Limited V/S Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Another Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
25-02-2020 V. Seethapathi Naidu (Died), Rep. by his Power of Attorney Agent Chandrasekaran & Others Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Biomass Power Producers Association, Tamil Nadu Sigapi Achi Building, Chennai V/S Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission 19-A, Chennai And Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
17-02-2020 M/s. Hitachi Power Europe GmbH, Represented by the Authorised Signatory of its Project Office, Chennai, Pravesh P. Jain Versus Income tax Settlement Commission Additional Bench, Chennai Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Musunuri Chinna Chakardhar, Represented by his Power of Attorney Agent, Chennai Versus The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 C.P. Shinod Versus M/s. Shriram Transport Co. Ltd Rep. by Its Power of Attorney Holder, Rajan & Another High Court of Kerala
13-02-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, O/o. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Salem Versus M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., M/s. JSW Power Ltd., Pottaneri, Mecheri High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 M/s. Malwa Solar Power Generation Private Limited Director, New Delhi Versus Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission The Secretary, Madhya Pradesh & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
10-02-2020 Vaayu (India) Power Corporation (P) Limited, Rep. by V. Chandrasekar V/S Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Brahmacharimayum Achou Sharma & Others Versus The State of Manipur through the Chief Secretary-cum-Secretary (Power), Govt. of Manipur & Others High Court of Manipur
10-02-2020 Madurai Power Corporation Limited, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Zothanpuia (Minor) Versus The Secretary, Power & Electricity Department, Government Of Mizoram, Aizawl High Court of Gauhati
05-02-2020 Ramakrishna Mission-Rep by its duly authorized Power Agent Swami Amirthananda Versus V. Parvathy High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 PPN Power Generating Company Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Power Max (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jindal Urban Waste Management (Guntur) Ltd & Another High Court of Delhi
03-02-2020 Lakshmi Rauschenbach, Rep. by Power of Attorney Anand Sasidharan Versus Valuesource Technologies (P) Ltd, Rep. by its Director Christian Lippens & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 U.P Power Corp Ltd Thru Managing Director Lko & Others Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court Faizabad & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
03-02-2020 Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Rep., by its Chairman, Karur Versus The Corporation Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Power of Attorney Agent, N.V. Aranganathan, Salem High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 In Phase Power Technologies Private Limited V/S ABB India Limited Competition Commission of India
30-01-2020 Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee Vidyut Soudha, Represented by its Chief Engineer & Others V/S M/s. NSL Sugars Ltd., Represented by its AGM - Power Trading & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
30-01-2020 GE Power India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Alstom Projects Ltd.) Versus A. Aziz Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 M/s. Lanco Tanjore Power Company Ltd., T.Nagar, Chennai & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Ram Gopal Supreme Court of India
29-01-2020 BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Another Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
29-01-2020 Adani Power Rajasthan Limited V/S Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, Through its Secretary, Jaipur Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
29-01-2020 KARE Power Resources Private Limited, Bengaluru & Another Versus Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
29-01-2020 Rajumary, through her power of attorney, A. Philip Berchmans Raj Versus Vellathai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
28-01-2020 Pragati Power Corporation Ltd. (PPCL) V/S Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
27-01-2020 P.R. Dhanalakshmiammal (Died) Rep. through her General Power of Attorney P.K. Jothikrishnan & Another Versus Lazar Nadar Rep. through his power agent S.Shanmugavel & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-01-2020 Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jindal India Thermal Power Limited High Court of Delhi
22-01-2020 Kalpataru Power Transmission Limited Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited High Court of Delhi
21-01-2020 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Nandanam, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. UB Engineering Limited, Rep. by its Power of Attorney G.D. Deshpande & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Haryana Power Purchase Centre Versus Magnum Power Generation Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-01-2020 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-01-2020 Tractebel Engineering Private Limited Versus Patnazi Power Limited National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
20-01-2020 His Holiness Sri-La-Sri Kasivasi, Muthukumaraswamy Thambiran Swamigal, Rep. By Power Holder Srimath Sundaramurthi Thambiran Swamigal, Joint Head of Kasimadam, Thanjavur Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Shanavas Zainul Arab, Rep. by her power of attorney R. Rajmohan Versus The District Collector-cum-Additional Secretary (Revenue), Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2020 A.V. Bindhu Versus Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd. Iritty Brach, Represented by Its Power of Attorney Holder, P.M. Rajani & Another High Court of Kerala
13-01-2020 Sukhalal & Others Versus Jacob, Represented by Power of Attorney holder Abraham, Cherthala & Another High Court of Kerala
09-01-2020 Greenesol Power Systems Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E., Bangalore-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Bangalore
08-01-2020 Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur V/S Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-01-2020 M/s. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited Versus Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
07-01-2020 M/s. Bhilangana Hydro Power Limited, Represented by Authorised Representative B-37, Uttar Pradesh Versus Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
07-01-2020 Vivek Versus Vishwam Power & Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
06-01-2020 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
06-01-2020 Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-01-2020 TVL. National Power Press, Rep. by its Partner, R. Raguraman, Thanjavur Versus The Special Committee U/s 16 D of the TNGST Act, 1959, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-12-2019 Deepak Transport Agency, Hydeerabad Versus The Madras Pharmaceuticals, Rep. By Subrogee/Power Agent, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-12-2019 M. Shankar & Others V/S M/s. Switching Power Conversion Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director R. Srinivas High Court of Karnataka
18-12-2019 Krishna Mahadevan @ Mahadevan, Hiruvananthapuram, Represented by Power of Attorney Holder, M. Krishna Iyer Versus K.R. Moniamma & Others High Court of Kerala
18-12-2019 Sai Regency Power corporation Private Limited (In Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016), Hyderabad Rep. By Resolution Professional G. Ramachandran Versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Puducherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 Nobby M. George, Changanassery Tlauk, Rep. by Power of Attorney holder his mother Alice George, Changanassery Versus Jossy Joseph, Kuttanad Taluk, Now Staying With Her Sister Raji Joseph, Erskine Court, Nanuet 10954, New York, USA High Court of Kerala
10-12-2019 ISNI Electric Power Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
10-12-2019 Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Versus The Arbitration Tribunal & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-12-2019 Prabhu rep. By his Power Agent, A.K. Chandrasekar Versus Dr. Mohanabalusamy High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-12-2019 Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Versus Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & Another Supreme Court of India
04-12-2019 Malarkodi Versus K. Subramanian, Through his Power Agent Raju, Sivagangai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-12-2019 P.G. Amirthalingam, Represented by his Power Agent V. Krishnasamy Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 R.S. Sahana Versus Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) & Others High Court of Karnataka
29-11-2019 Alli Sekar alias Sekar Versus Ramu, Represented by his Power Agent Rajeswari Ammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-11-2019 Lakshmi Kumar @ Vasudevan & Others Versus Ahobila Mutt by his Holines, Narayana Yathindra Mahisikan, Represented by his Power of Attorney agent S. Rajagopalan, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court