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



Praveen Agarwal, Agra v/s Dcit Central Circle, Agra


Company & Directors' Information:- PRAVEEN INDIA LTD . [Active] CIN = L21029WB1983PLC036326

Company & Directors' Information:- AGARWAL CO LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1950PLC018969

Company & Directors' Information:- PRAVEEN & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1999PTC098397

    ITA No. 335/Agr of 2017

    Decided On, 08 August 2018

    At, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Agra

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. A.D. JAIN
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA
    By, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Mahesh Agarwal, CA. For the Respondent: Inderjeet Singh, CIT DR.



Judgment Text

Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

This appeal by the assesseeis against the Order dated 22.05.2017 passed by Ld CIT(A) - IV, Kanpur sustaining the addition of Rs.3,19,16,899/- made by the Ld Assessing Officer U/s 143(3) of the Act., taking various grounds of appeal as per Form 36. The assessee has also filed an additional ground, under Rule 11, as under -

1. That order passed by Ld AO and Ld CIT-A are bad in law and void ab initio as much as it is factually admitted by the Ld AO before Ld CIT-A IV, Kanpur in penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the same assessee for same period that no warrant was issued in assessee's case and assessee was not covered under search operation u/s 132, and therefore admittedly once there is search u/s 132 on the assessee and it is settled that on the basis of documents found from search action on other person only possible legal course of action is to initiate the proceedings u/s 153C which is not validly done in the instant case as per conditions prescribed under the Act, so entire proceedings including orders passed by Ld AO and Ld CIT-A are invalid.

1.1 That order passed by Ld AO and Ld CIT-A are bad in law and void ab initio in as much as no where assessee has been communicated any available satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C by the AO of the searched person in the assessment of searched person for alleged documents found during search and for want of valid satisfaction note u/s 153C, entire proceedings including orders passed by Ld AO and Ld CIT-A are invalid.

1.2 That order passed by Ld AO and Ld CIT-A are bad in law and void ab initio in as much as statement recorded purportedly u/s 132(4) of assessee, and material impounded u/s 132 as referred extensively in impugned orders were not recorded and obtained during search action on the assessee u/s 132 and accordingly without valid action u/s 153C, entire proceedings including orders passed by Ld AO and Ld CIT-A are invalid. Further, at the time of search assessee was not well and said statement was recorded in suspicious circumstances.

1.3 That order passed by Ld AO and Ld CIT-A are bad in law and void ab initio in as much as whole proceedings have been apparently based on incorrect hypothesis that assessee has been subjected to search action u/s 132 were as fact is that assessee is not subject matter of search action u/s 132 of the Act.

2. That order passed by Ld AO and Ld CIT-A are bad in law and void ab initio in as much as order passed u/s 127 is not validly passed in accordance with mandatory jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the Act as in order dated 07/05/2014 and notice dated 07/04/2014 there is no apparent positive agreement between two concerned CIT's (CIT-1, Agra and CIT-Central Circle, Kanpur) which is jurisdictional requirement and also notice for proposed transfer u/s 127 is issued by ITO, Technical which is sufficient to quash the subsequent proceedings and orders passed by Ld AO and Ld CIT-A being passed without jurisdiction. Further, assessee's reply dated 23/04/2014 filed in transfer proceedings u/s 127 has not been considered at all in order dated 07/05/2014.

2. In the additional grounds the assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the AO and, thus, being pure legal grounds are admitted. The legal issue goes to the root of the matter and hence taken up for adjudication first.

3. Breif facts of the case, as per the assessment order, are that a search was conducted on 12/11/2013 at the premises of Eminent & Dynamic Group including premises of the assesee in which certain documents assets etc were found; thatthe case of the assessee was centralized U/s 127 of the Income Tax Act with the Dy.CIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Agra vide order F.No. CIT- I/Agra/Tech/Centralization/ 2014-15 dated 07.05.2014; thattheassessee during the course of search voluntarily surrendered amount of 2,50,00,000/- as per his statement u/s 132(4) but he surrendered only Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in the return of income; that from a diary 'Shanker Note Book' found during the search, the AO noted that total of expenses mentioned was at Rs.4,69,16,899/- and he gave a show cause notice dated 12/03/2016 calling explanation of the assessee and thatthe assessee denied any transactions made and also claimed the diary to be a dumb and unreliable document. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of 3,19,16,899/-, by giving credit of Rs.1,50,00,000/- surrendered by the assessee in his return. In appeal Ld CIT(Appeals)-IV, Kanpur confirmed the addition on the basis of finding in the assessment order.In the aforementioned background, challenge before us is not only to the addition but to the entire proceedings on account of valid jurisdiction of the Ld AO passing the order.

4. Heard both the sides, perused material on record and considered thelegal aspects.

5. The Ldcounsel for the appellant assessee referred to the assessment order and submitted that AO,though has mentioned that a search was conducted at the premises of Eminent & Dynamic Group, including premises of the assesee, but it wasnowhere specifically mentioned that the assessee was also covered in the said search. As regards, the premises of the assessee he drew our attention to assessee's submission, in centralization proceeding U/s 127 (APB/ 9) wherein vide para 2,assessee specifically submitted as under -

"Search operation conducted on 18/11/2013 on the premises of B-26 New Agra, Agra allegedly belonging to Pankaj Agarwal who is said to be the director in the group companies of Eminent & Dynamic, assessee is unaware of the fact that under what circumstances the above named person Pankaj Agarwal was using the address of the premises of the assessee in their income tax matters. Whole of the search operation was conducted in the name of Pankaj Agarwal, B-26 New Agra, Agra where as this premise was neither held by Pankaj Agarwal whether wholly or partly, nor was given on rent to Pankaj Agarwal and hence whole of search operation was erroneous and liable to be invalid under the given circumstances."

5.1 The Ld AR further submitted that still a notice U/s 153A of the Act was served on the assessee.Consequently, assessee filed his returns and assessment was framed upon him treating to be a searched person. Copy of such notice is filed on record as APB/16. It was further submission of the Ld AR that reference to assessment u/s 153C in the order of Ld CIT(A) is not borne out of the records and is incorrect.

6. Ld AR further submitted that in the assessment order Ld AO had alsoinitiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act and a penalty of Rs.47,11,034/- was levied upon him. The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was challenged before the CIT(Appeals)-IV, Kanpur,by way of an additional ground, challenging the legality of such penalty as under -

"1. The order passed by the Ld AO under section 271AAB is void ab- initio as no search proceedings in terms of section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act had been initiated against the appellant.

2. As penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB can be initiated only against a whome a search warrant u/s 132(1) has been made and served and no such proceedings had been undertaken the order passed u/s 271AAB be quashed and penalty levied may be deleted."

6.1 From the order of the CIT(Appeals)-IV, Kanpur, copy placed as APB/1-5, it was submitted that Ld CIT(A) on this issue remanded the matter to Additional DIT (Inv), Agra and in response the Addl. DIT(Inv), Agra categorically admitted, vide letter No. Addl. DIT(Inv)/Agra/2017-18/1697 dated 11.12.2017,that no search was conducted on the assessee and in view this fact the penalty U/s 271 AAB has been treated as ab-initio invalid and thus it was annulled.

6.2 Ld. AR also argued that in the given facts of the case assessee cannot be treated as searched person and no proceedings could have been initiated against him U/s 153A of the Act and consequently entire proceedings including the assessment order under challenge is illegal and void ab-initio.

7. The Ld DR has not disputed the fact that no search warrant was issued u/s 132(1) on the assessee in the search conducted 12/11/2013 on Eminent & Dynamic group.

8. Section 153A of the Act reads as under -

"153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149,section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall--

(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years [and for the relevant assessment year or years] referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139;

(b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made [and for the relevant assessment year or years] :

Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years [and for the relevant assessment year or years] :

Provided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years [and for the relevant assessment year or years] referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate :

Provided also that the Central Government may by rulesmade by it and published in the Official Gazette (except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated under the second proviso), specify the class or classes of cases in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made [and for the relevant assessment year or years: Provided also that no notice for assessment or reassessment shall be issued by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year or years unless--

(a) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more in the relevant assessment year or in aggregate in the relevant assessment years;

(b) the income referred to in clause (a) or part thereof has escaped assessment for such year or years; and

(c) the search under section 132 is initiated or requisition under section 132A is made on or after the 1st day of April, 2017.

Explanation 1.--For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "relevant assessment year" shall mean an assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than ten assessment years from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made.

Explanation 2.--For the purposes of the fourth proviso, "asset" shall include immovable property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner:

Provided that such revival shall cease to have effect, if such order of annulment is set aside.

Explanation. --For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, --

(i) save as otherwise provided in this section, section 153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section;

(ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year."

8. A plain reading of Section 153(1) would suggest that a notice U/s 153A, calling an assessee to furnish return of income, could be issued only on a person against whom a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A. Thus, the valid jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 153A could be assumed only and only when an action u/s 132 or 132A of the Act, against the assessee,

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

is established. 9. In the present case, as discussed above and specifically in the back ground of report of the Addl. DIT(Inv), Agra submitted to the CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur in appeal against penalty levied upon the assessee u/s 271AAB for this very year, the relevant part of which is as under - "kindly refer to your letter F.No.CIT(A)-IV/KNP/Remand Report/2017-18/297 dated 08.12.2017 on the above subject. 2. In this respect it is respectfully submitted that as per records available with this office, the warrant u/s 132(1) of the I.T.Act 1961 has not been issued in the said case. However, warrant u/s 132(1) of the I.T.Act 1961 has been issued in the case of Shri Pankaj Agarwal, M/s Eminent Infra Developers Pvt Ltd., B-46, New Agra, Agra and a copy of panchnama drawn in this case is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal and further necessary action at your end." (emphasis supplied by us) 10. It is evident that neither a search was initiated under section 132 nor books of account, other documents or any assets were requisitioned under section 132A against the assessee. 11. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the caseas discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the notice U/s 153A dated 24/07/2015 issued to the assessee was without jurisdiction and consequently entire assessment proceedings were void and illegal ab-initio. The assessment is, thus, quashed 12. We hold accordingly and allow appeal of the assessee.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

24-09-2020 Yogesh Agarwal & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. herein by: The Investigation Officer Cyber Crime Police Station (CID), Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 Sandeep Agarwal & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
24-07-2020 Richa Agarwal Versus M/s. Jaypee Infratech Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 A. Praveen Kumar Versus The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Egmore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-06-2020 Anurag Agarwal & Another Versus Supertech Limited Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
15-06-2020 State of Telangana Versus Polepaka Praveen @ Pawan Supreme Court of India
26-05-2020 Suneet Kumar Versus Krishna Kumar Agarwal High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-04-2020 For the Petitioner: Suo Moto, Deba Siddiqui, Swetashwa Agarwal, Advocates. For the Respondent: G.A., Manish Singh, Rajrshi Gupta, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State of GNCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Praveen Kumar Versus M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 Arun Kumar Agarwal Versus South Central Railway & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-03-2020 R. Praveen Versus The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Pradip Kumar Chaudhuri Versus M/s. Dagcon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Through its Resolution Professional Bimal Agarwal & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 Kailash Chandra Agarwal & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
02-03-2020 M/s. Binjusaria Ispat Private Limited Versus Amit Kumar Agarwal High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Khariwal Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
25-02-2020 Anil Kumar Agarwal Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-02-2020 In The Matter of Anubhav Anilkumar Agarwal Versus Om Prakash Rohra & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
19-02-2020 Shiv Kumar alias Jawahar Saraf Versus Ramavtar Agarwal Supreme Court of India
19-02-2020 Rakesh Agarwal Versus Santosh Kumar Gangwar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Lucknow, U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Chaudhary & Others Versus Election Commission of India & Others High Court of Delhi
10-02-2020 Dipika Agarwal nee Khaitan Versus Rishi Agarwal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-02-2020 Vishnu Kumar Agarwal Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Kelvin Jute Company Ltd. Workers' Provident Fund & Another Versus Krishna Kumar Agarwal, President, Waverly Jute Mills Co. Workers & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-02-2020 Praveen, Proprietor Versus Sumesh, KaleeckalVeedu, KrishnapuramMuri, Krishnapuram & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
30-01-2020 Praveen & Another Versus Baby Ulhahnan & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-01-2020 Ashok Kumar Agarwal Versus B. Balraj Goud & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-01-2020 Pankaj Kumar Versus Praveen Jain High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
24-01-2020 Anil Agarwal Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited High Court of for the State of Telangana
22-01-2020 Rajesh Kumar Agarwal & Another Versus Sanjay Gupta High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-01-2020 Deepak Agarwal & Another Versus Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-01-2020 P.V. Philip Versus Praveen & Another High Court of Kerala
10-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Urmila Agarwal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-01-2020 Sharad Chandraprakash Agarwal Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-01-2020 Praveen Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
07-01-2020 Gaurav Agarwal & Another Versus M/s. Imperia Structures Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-01-2020 Rajkamal Agarwal & Another V/S Sahara Prime City Limited, Through its Managing Director, Lucknow & Another Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
06-01-2020 Vipin Agarwal V/S Satyaprakash Aggarwal & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
17-12-2019 Rockline Construction Company a Sole Proprietor firm of Saranga Anil Agarwal Versus Doha Bank, QSC & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-12-2019 Ashi Kumar Versus Aseem Agarwal Supreme Court of India
10-12-2019 Shalimar Iron and Steel Private Limited, Ramgarh Cantt. through its Director Rafat Praveen Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-12-2019 IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. Versus Manish Agarwal & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-12-2019 The Manager, Agarwal Packers & Movers, a unit of DRS Logistics Pvt., Ltd. & Another Versus Sharad Kumar Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
18-11-2019 Sajjan Raj Versus Sushil Agarwal High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
18-11-2019 Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Durgesh Kumar Agarwal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-11-2019 Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal Supreme Court of India
08-11-2019 Subhash Agarwal Versus Abhishek Andley & Others High Court of Delhi
25-10-2019 Mukesh Ramdevji Agarwal & Another Versus Balmukund Dhruvanarayan Lohiya (Huf) & Others Supreme Court of India
18-10-2019 Naveen Kumar Agarwal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh
18-10-2019 Virendrakumar Agarwal & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-10-2019 Praveen Kumar Prakash & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others Supreme Court of India
16-10-2019 Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sun Paper Mill Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
11-10-2019 R. Jaikrishnan @ Jaikrishnan Nair Versus G. Praveen Kumar High Court of Kerala
04-10-2019 Hemant Mohan Agarwal Versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-09-2019 Prateek Agarwal Versus Richa Garg High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-09-2019 Sunil Kumar Agarwal Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-09-2019 Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal Versus Central Bank of India & Another Supreme Court of India
03-09-2019 Kuldeep Agarwal Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
30-08-2019 Mukta Agarwal Versus Vineet Gupta High Court of Punjab and Haryana
26-08-2019 Sajan Kumar Agarwal Versus State of Sikkim & Another High Court of Sikkim
26-08-2019 Sajan Kumar Agarwal Versus State of Sikkim & Another High Court of Sikkim
22-08-2019 Electronics & Controls Power Systems Private Limited, Rep. herein by its Managing Director, Rajaram Ramamurthy Versus WeP Peripherals Limited, Rep. herein by its Magaing Director, Ram Agarwal High Court of Karnataka
21-08-2019 Narasimhamurthy Versus Suresh Chandra Gupta, Dead by his Lrs: Ravi Agarwal, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
20-08-2019 Rajeev Agarwal Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
14-08-2019 Sudera Realty Private Limited Versus Om Prakash Chachan (Agarwal) & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-08-2019 Meenu Agarwal Versus District Magistrate Pauri Gharwal & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
26-07-2019 Rajendra Agarwal & Others Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
22-07-2019 Ashok Bansidhar Agarwal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-07-2019 Raghunath Agarwal Versus Panchi High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-07-2019 Kishan M. Agarwal Versus The Metro Railway, Kolkata Supreme Court of India
17-07-2019 Bhagirath Agarwal @ Bhagirath Prosad Agarwal Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
16-07-2019 Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited, Mumbai Versus Abhishek Steel & Power Limited rep. by its Managing Director, Gopal Agarwal, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-07-2019 Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Another Versus Praveen Kumar Singh High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-07-2019 Ramesh Ku Agarwal & Others Versus State of Orissa & Others High Court of Orissa
04-07-2019 Dipika Agarwal @ Dipika Khaitan Versus Rishi Agarwal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-07-2019 Ankit Sarda Versus Subash Agarwal High Court of Sikkim
03-07-2019 For the Appellant: Yogesh Agarwal, Gulrez Khan, J.H. Khan, Manish Goyal, W.H. Khan, Advocates. For the Respondent: A.K. Sachan, A.N. Bhargava, Rakesh Pande, Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-06-2019 Y.A. Praveen & Another Versus Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Neervaram, Wayanad High Court of Kerala
03-06-2019 Gouri Shankar Agarwal & Another Versus Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-05-2019 Joginder Singh Chauhan & Another Versus Praveen Dulta Chauhan & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-05-2019 Nimish Agarwal & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
20-05-2019 Pulkit Agarwal & Others Versus Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-05-2019 Bijay Kumar Agarwal @ Vijay Kumar Agarwal Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
03-05-2019 Ramesh Chandra Agarwal & Another Versus M/s. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-05-2019 UP Housing & Development Board Versus Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Supreme Court of India
01-05-2019 Praveen Singh Ramakant Bhadauriya Versus Neelam Praveen Singh Bhadauriya Supreme Court of India
25-04-2019 Kanchan Agarwal Versus Income Tax Officer Ward High Court of Karnataka
18-04-2019 Poonam Agarwal & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-04-2019 Praveen Gupta Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
16-04-2019 Living Media India Limited & Another Versus Vijayan Madhavan Praveen & Another High Court of Delhi
08-04-2019 Praveen Chand Shrivastava Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Law & Legislature, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-04-2019 Bhagwan Das Goel(Dead) Through His L.Rs. & Others Versus Pyare Kishan Agarwal Supreme Court of India
03-04-2019 Praveen Kapila Versus Navin Soi & Another High Court of Delhi
03-04-2019 Sushil Kumar Agarwal Versus Ajay Kumar Saraff & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-04-2019 Praveen Kumar Kommineni Versus The State High Court of Delhi
18-03-2019 Mridulika Gupta & Others Versus M/s. Agarwal Associates (Promoters) Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-03-2019 Gorkhaland Territorial Administration & Others Versus Kishorilal Agarwal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
22-02-2019 Ajay Agarwal & Another Versus Ashok Magnetic Ltd. & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal