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



Rajnish Kohli v/s HCL Technologies Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- HCL CORPORATION LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65993DL1980PLC180124

Company & Directors' Information:- HCL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74140DL1991PLC046369

Company & Directors' Information:- HCL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74900DL1997PTC089338

Company & Directors' Information:- M S C TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64201DL2002PLC115040

Company & Directors' Information:- HCL CORPORATION LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U99999DL1994PLC061129

Company & Directors' Information:- HCL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC183849

Company & Directors' Information:- R S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007DL1998PTC093644

Company & Directors' Information:- C L C TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2000PTC105957

Company & Directors' Information:- I Q TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2000PLC034058

Company & Directors' Information:- IN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2010PTC210298

Company & Directors' Information:- S D M TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22219KA2013PTC070117

Company & Directors' Information:- M & M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1990PTC056999

Company & Directors' Information:- S L S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00367KA1988PTC009651

Company & Directors' Information:- A V K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2002PTC113742

Company & Directors' Information:- C V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52311CH2013PTC034790

Company & Directors' Information:- R G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL2000PTC106267

Company & Directors' Information:- L A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2010PTC209195

Company & Directors' Information:- N R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900GJ2000PTC038010

Company & Directors' Information:- H R TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52603MH2003PTC138635

Company & Directors' Information:- C S A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300TN1996PTC037105

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1996PTC104023

Company & Directors' Information:- S B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200AP2015PTC097640

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND I TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA1997PTC022565

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26900MH1999PTC118353

Company & Directors' Information:- V V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300HR2008PTC037950

Company & Directors' Information:- S W TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U74140DL1970PTC005326

Company & Directors' Information:- B A TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2012PLC143775

Company & Directors' Information:- J TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TZ2000PLC009315

Company & Directors' Information:- J N TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC050546

Company & Directors' Information:- J V D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200MH2005PTC157334

Company & Directors' Information:- J K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC108155

Company & Directors' Information:- I E M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2008PTC187513

Company & Directors' Information:- D. A. TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC173738

Company & Directors' Information:- K M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2006PTC150457

Company & Directors' Information:- D. L. TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC175475

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33112UP2001PTC026185

Company & Directors' Information:- S J R S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2008PTC185244

Company & Directors' Information:- E M TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC141257

Company & Directors' Information:- D W TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50400HR2010PTC041610

Company & Directors' Information:- V INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TN2008PTC069066

Company & Directors' Information:- R K H TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106586

Company & Directors' Information:- M C A TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U73100MH2003PTC143446

Company & Directors' Information:- A 2 D TECHNOLOGIES (I) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120MH2010PTC208798

Company & Directors' Information:- V M B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TZ2009PTC015638

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y 5 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300UP2010PTC039514

Company & Directors' Information:- V & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2013PTC199124

Company & Directors' Information:- V J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC163641

Company & Directors' Information:- E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106075

Company & Directors' Information:- KOHLI AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL1981PTC011660

Company & Directors' Information:- L B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2000PTC124946

Company & Directors' Information:- K-TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KL2006PTC019422

Company & Directors' Information:- J S R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PB2011PTC035189

Company & Directors' Information:- R V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2007PTC053614

Company & Directors' Information:- V T S TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29309TN1996PLC036728

Company & Directors' Information:- H & S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PY2009PTC002365

Company & Directors' Information:- K S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200PB2001PTC024628

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PB2011PTC035133

Company & Directors' Information:- V M S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392TN2004PTC054456

Company & Directors' Information:- B H TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74200MH2007PTC175126

Company & Directors' Information:- AT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PN2007PTC130827

Company & Directors' Information:- P E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PN2010PTC137065

Company & Directors' Information:- M & B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TN2010PTC074938

Company & Directors' Information:- M & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2010PTC071594

Company & Directors' Information:- A A S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74200TG2005PTC046996

Company & Directors' Information:- J K M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TN2008PTC069232

Company & Directors' Information:- O S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900CH2013PTC034358

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2010PTC205207

Company & Directors' Information:- M & A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2014PTC269962

Company & Directors' Information:- A N D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KA2012PTC066768

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND 8 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392KL2003PTC016720

Company & Directors' Information:- V R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64202CH2000PTC023433

Company & Directors' Information:- R K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900CH2000PTC023550

Company & Directors' Information:- F C TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2007PTC159296

Company & Directors' Information:- S R J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC176517

Company & Directors' Information:- G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29299GJ2001PTC039300

    RFA. No. 735 of 2018

    Decided On, 04 September 2018

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

    For the Appellant: Raman Kapur, Sr. Advocate, Aviral Tiwari, Advocate. For the Respondent: -----------



Judgment Text

Oral:

CM No. 35801/2018 (delay in re-filing)

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

CM No.35802/2018 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

CM stands disposed of.

RFA No.735/2018

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 27.2.2018 by which the Trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff. By the suit the appellant/plaintiff sought the relief of mandatory injunction for grant of 1950 Shares of the respondent/defendant company to the appellant/plaintiff under the Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP) or in the alternative the appellant/plaintiff claimed the relief of money decree being the value/price of shares as damages totaling to a sum of Rs.56,55,000/-.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff was an employee of the respondent/defendant company M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. The earlier name of the respondent/defendant company was HCL Consulting Ltd., and this was during the period when the appellant/plaintiff was the employee of the respondent/defendant company. By the Letter dated 8.11.1995 the appellant/plaintiff was offered by the respondent/defendant company ESOP of 1950 Shares of the respondent/defendant company. This offer given to the appellant/plaintiff was in terms of the Letter dated 8.11.1995 (Ex.P3). The offer was however subsequently deferred in terms of the Letter dated 20.1.1997 (Ex.P-4) whereby the entitlement of the appellant/plaintiff to the ESOP was to be enforced after 30 days of the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the respondent/defendant company. Appellant/plaintiff pleaded that he kept on patiently waiting to get the ESOP and that he was orally informed by the officers of the respondent/defendant company that information with respect to the coming out of its IPO shall be conveyed to him. The appellant/plaintiff pleads that he had repeatedly requested the respondent/defendant company through phone calls and e-mails to enable him to exercise the option in terms of the Letter dated 20.1.1997, but the respondent/defendant company refused to grant ESOP for one reason or the other. Ultimately, the appellant/plaintiff was forced to issue a Legal Notice dated 11.10.2004 asking the respondent/defendant company to issue the ESOP shares, and to make good on all losses, and on failing to get the requisite response, the subject suit was filed.

3. Respondent/Defendant company contested the suit by filing its written statement. The first defence raised by the respondent/defendant company was that the ESOP 1995 was withdrawn in the year 1999. It was further contended by the respondent/defendant company that the appellant/plaintiff knew of the withdrawal of ESOP 1995 Scheme, including because under the ESOP 1999 Scheme of the holding company of the respondent/defendant company namely HCL Corporation Ltd., the appellant/plaintiff was granted 9662 Stock Options at Rs.4/- each and the appellant/plaintiff exercised that option and made profit of about Rs.20 lacs on sale of the said shares. The further case of the respondent/defendant company was that the entitlement for ESOP as claimed by appellant/plaintiff, in terms of the SEBI (Employee Stock Option Scheme and Employee Stock Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999 as amended w.e.f 30.6.2003, could not be given to the appellant/plaintiff as ESOP benefits were to be given only to an employee of a company or employee of a subsidiary company or an employee of a holding company, and that the appellant/plaintiff admittedly from April 1997 ceased to be the employee of the respondent/defendant company and became the employee, not of a subsidiary or holding company of the respondent/defendant company, but of a joint venture of the respondent/defendant company and M/s. Perot Systems Corporation, USA. In fact, M/s HCL Perot Systems Ltd. even ceased to be a joint venture company of the group of respondent/defendant company w.e.f 19.12.2003 when it ceased to be a joint venture on account of sale of shares in the joint venture company by the respondent/defendant company M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. to M/s Perot Systems Ltd. It was further pleaded by the respondent/defendant company that since the appellant/plaintiff knowingly failed to participate in ESOP 1999 and therefore now not only it cannot be asserted by the appellant/plaintiff that he came to know only in the year 2004 that the ESOP 1999 had been withdrawn, but infact the suit was barred by time. Suit was hence prayed to be dismissed.

4. After pleadings were complete the trial court framed the issues and parties led evidence, and these aspects are recorded in paras 6 to 7.2 of the impugned judgment, and these paras read as under:-

'6. Issues

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 23.01.2007:

1. Whether in view of SEBI (Employees Stock Option Scheme and Employee Stock Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999 (Guidelines), the plaintiff is entitled to exercise the Stock Option Plan of 1950 shares? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is an employee of the defendant company or a subsidiary of the defendant company and as such he is entitled to exercise the balance stock options? OPD.

3. Whether the stock option in respect of 1950 equity shares as claimed by the plaintiff is different from the equity shares claimed by the plaintiff in Suit No. 414 of 2006? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff has approached this Court with clean hands entitling him to the grant of a decree for mandatory injunction? OPP.

5. Whether in case plaintiff cannot be granted decree of mandatory injunction, would the defendant be liable to pay damages? OPP

6. Whether the ESOP was withdrawn by HCL Corporation which issued the ESOP? OPD

7. Whether the suit is time barred?

8. Relief, if any.

7. Evidence led by parties

7.1 In evidence, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 vide affidavit Ex.PW1/A. PW1 relied upon documents Ex.P3 to Ex.P7 viz., (i) letter dated 08.11.1995 issued by defendant to plaintiff as Ex.P3; (ii) letter dated 20.01.1997 sent by defendant to plaintiff as Ex.P4; (iii) copy of legal notice dated 11.10.2004 sent by plaintiff to defendant as Ex.P5; (iv) copy of letter dated 24.12.2004 sent by plaintiff to defendant as Ex.P6 and (v) newspaper „Times of India‟ dated 07.01.2006 as Ex.P7.

7.2 Defendant got examined Sh. Manish Anand, Deputy Company Secretary of the defendant company as DW-1 vide affidavit Ex.DW1/A.'

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued as under:-

(a) Trial court has committed an illegality in denying the benefit of ESOP 1999 of the respondent/defendant company to the appellant/plaintiff because the respondent/defendant company never informed the appellant/plaintiff of the IPO of the respondent/defendant company taking place in the year 1999. It is argued that since the factum of IPO of the year 1999 of the respondent/defendant company was not informed to the appellant/plaintiff, therefore, the appellant/plaintiff could not exercise the option within 30 days of the IPO in the year 1999, and consequently the right of the appellant/plaintiff is alive for getting the 1950 Shares of the respondent/defendant company in terms of ESOP 1995.

(b) It is argued that the trial court has wrongly held the suit to be barred by time when it was held that the suit should have been filed within 3 years of 1999. Since the suit was filed much later in the year 2006, inasmuch as, the appellant/plaintiff never had the knowledge of the IPO issue of the respondent/defendant company during this period starting from the year 1999, and the appellant/plaintiff came to know of the same only in around October 2004 when the Legal Notice dated 11.10.2004 (Ex.P-5) was sent by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant company.

(c) Trial court has gravely erred in placing reliance upon SEBI Regulations of 1999 as amended w.e.f. 2003 because such regulations cannot have retrospective effect to take away the benefit granted to the appellant/plaintiff in the year 1995.

6. In my opinion, the appeal is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. The reasons for the same are stated hereinafter.

7. Firstly in my opinion it cannot be argued by the appellant/plaintiff that he was not aware of the IPO of the respondent/defendant company in the year 1999. Trial court in this regard has, in para 8.25 of its impugned judgment held that appellant/plaintiff had applied as a private investor in IPO 1999 of the respondent/defendant company, and therefore, he would be consequently well aware of the IPO of the respondent/defendant company of the year 1999. Though Learned Senior Counsel for appellant/plaintiff argued that the appellant/plaintiff did not know that IPO was of HCL Consulting Ltd., and under which name the stock options in 1995 in terms of the letter dated 8.11.1995 (Ex.P3), inasmuch as the 1999 IPO was in the name of the respondent/defendant company HCL Technologies Ltd., however I cannot agree with this argument for two reasons.

(i) Firstly, IPO is in terms of the Prospectus and it is conceded before this Court on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff that in the Prospectus indubitably it is written that the respondent/defendant company‟s present name which was Hindustan Technologies Ltd. was earlier having the name of Hindustan Consulting Ltd. Once therefore the appellant/plaintiff applied as a private investor in an IPO, he would deemed to have read the prospectus, and therefore he would have very much known in the year 1999 itself of the IPO having taken place of the respondent/defendant company in the year 1999 itself. This argument of the appellant/plaintiff that he did not come to know about the IPO of the respondent/defendant company in the year 1999 is rejected.

(ii) The second reason why the appellant/plaintiff is deemed to have knowledge of IPO of the respondent/defendant company in the year 1999 is also because the appellant/plaintiff was legally put to regular enquiries after receiving the Letter of the respondent/defendant company dated 20.1.1997 (Ex.P4) whereby ESOP 1995 was deferred till 30 days after making of the IPO. The appellant/plaintiff cannot claim that he was entitled to keep on sleeping and suddenly wake up in the year 2004 to claim that he did not know that any IPO took place of the respondent/defendant company in the year 1999. Where a person by his own act fails to take requisite steps which he ought to have taken by which such person would have come to know of a fact, then in law the necessary knowledge is imputed to such a person and he is deemed to have such knowledge. This is so in this case, because after the year 1997 there is no correspondence of the appellant/plaintiff with the respondent/defendant company as to whether any IPO of the respondent/defendant company has or has not come out.

8. I also refuse to believe the oral statements and the oral contentions urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, as per his pleadings and evidence, that the employees of the respondent/defendant company kept on assuring him that he will get the shares under the ESOP of 1995.

9. Therefore, in my opinion the appellant/plaintiff was very much aware of IPO of respondent/defendant company coming out in the year 1999, and therefore appellant/plaintiff cannot contend by a suit filed on 1.2.2006 that ESOP 1995 continued to exist although the appellant/plaintiff had failed to exercise the option for ESOP within 30 days of the IPO of the respondent/defendant company coming out in the year 1999. Thus it is held that, by the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff in the year 2006, the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to accept the ESOP 1995 by getting the requisite 1950 Shares as appellant/plaintiff had failed to apply for the same within 30 days of IPO of respondent/defendant company in the year 1999.

10. For the self-same reasons as discussed above, the trial court has also rightly held the suit to be barred by limitation which was filed in the year 2006 for ESOP given vide Letter dated 8.11.1995 and postponed vide Letter dated 20.1.1997 to 30 days of the IPO, as it is already held that the appellant/plaintiff had actual knowledge of the 1999 IPO of the respondent/defendant company as discussed above, and also is otherwise deemed to have knowledge of the IPO of the respondent/defendant company in the year 1999 and therefore the suit had to be filed within 3 years of 1999 but the suit was filed 7 years after the year 1999.

11. I also do not agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff that SEBI 1999 Regulations and as amended from June 2003 will not prevent the exercise of option of ESOP 1995 by the appellant/plaintiff inasmuch as the SEBI 1999 Regulations are prospective. In my opinion in the facts of the present case there is no issue of prospectivity as the prospectivity aspect cannot destroy crystallised rights. In the year 1999 there were no crystallised rights in favour of appellant/plaintiff as he had not accepted in the year 1999 the ESOP. Only when a contract is complete, by acceptance of an offer of ESOP, would crystallised rights come into existence, and by the year 1999 the appellant/plaintiff had not exercised the ESOP option, and in any case not within 3 years of the 1999 IPO of the respondent/defendant company. Since ignorantia juris non excusat, the appellant/plaintiff is deemed to have knowledge of the 1999 SEBI Regulations, at least within 3 years from 1999, and thus the appellant/plaintiff should have filed the subject suit for specific performance to claim the shares under the ESOP 1995, but since admittedly the subject suit has been filed only on 1.2.2006, therefore, for this reason the appellant/plaintiff cannot claim that the he is entitled to the benefit of ESOP 1995 in spite of the same being legally barred. 1

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

3. Thus when the ESOP 1995 was given at that time the appellant/plaintiff was the employee of the respondent/defendant company, but once appellant/plaintiff ceased to be the employee of the respondent/defendant company w.e.f April, 1997, then because of SEBI 1999 Regulations which provided that the Scheme of ESOP 1999 will not be available to an employee who is not the employee of the company or the subsidiary company and holding company, then statutorily the right of the appellant/plaintiff came to an end because of SEBI 1999 Regulations (and as amended w.e.f June, 2003) had come into force. 12. In my opinion, the trial court has also rightly dismissed the suit by holding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness. Readiness and willingness would have been proved by the appellant/plaintiff in case the appellant/plaintiff had sent his cheque for the amount of Rs.19,500/- alongwith his notice dated 11.10.2004/Ex.P5, but admittedly the appellant/plaintiff failed to pay/tender the amount of Rs.19,500/- alongwith his Legal Notice dated 11.10.2004. Further, and though it may only be a technicality, but the fact is that the appellant/plaintiff has not filed and proved in the suit his financial capacity with respect to the amount payable of Rs.19,500/-, and hence for this technicality also in my opinion, it has to be held that the appellant/plaintiff was not ready and willing for grant of specific performance of the ESOP 1995. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

26-08-2020 Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. & Another Versus Unwired Planet International Ltd. & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
25-08-2020 Evergrwoing Investments & Consultants Private Limited Versus Tomorrowland Technologies Exports Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
20-08-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Sankhya Technologies Pvt Ltd., Chennai. High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 Sandeep Kohli & Another Versus Rajvir Hadda & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 M/s. Luminous Power Technologies (P) Ltd. & Another Versus Kanwar Sain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-07-2020 M/s. Sai Srinivasa Properties & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represent by its Director N. Vivekananda Reddy Versus Krishnappa & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-06-2020 Uber Technologies Inc. Versus Heller Supreme Court of Canada
23-06-2020 Kumkum Talwar & Others Versus Natasha Kohli & Another High Court of Delhi
18-06-2020 M/s. CSK Technologies, Hydrabad (Telangana) Versus South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
05-06-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited Versus NCS Computech Private Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Microvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 M/s. Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd., (Formerly known as Visteon Powertrain Control Systems India Private Limited) Keelakaranai Village, Malrosapuram Post, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu District V/S The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle - I (3), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
02-03-2020 Ajay Issar Versus Komal Issar (Nee Kohli) High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-02-2020 Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited High Court of Delhi
24-02-2020 Natasha Kohli & Others Versus Mon Mohan Kohli & Others High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 SKF Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bangalore & Another National Company Law Tribunal Bengaluru
05-02-2020 Mandeep Singh Kohli & Another Versus Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence D(Fy-II) & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
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
31-01-2020 Sarine Technologies Ltd. Through Authorised Signatory Prachi Bhardwaj Versus Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation Through Partner Dhaval Dahyabhai Diyora High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
31-01-2020 In Phase Power Technologies Private Limited V/S ABB India Limited Competition Commission of India
09-01-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
09-01-2020 M/s. Grant Thornton India LLP., New Delhi Versus 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Formerly Known as Financial Technologies (India) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-12-2019 Government Medical College And Post Graduate Institute & Super Specialty Hospital Versus H.C.L. Infosystemes Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-12-2019 M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Supreme Court of India
16-12-2019 M/s. Taranga Technologies, Andhra Pradesh Versus M/s. Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-12-2019 Sterlite Technologies Limited Rep by Chief Manager K. Sundar & Another Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep by Managing Director, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-11-2019 Rajdeep Energies Pvt.Ltd., Represented by its Director Versus Res Q Technologies Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director Magesh High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-11-2019 Smartchem Technologies Limited & Another Versus The Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-09-2019 M/s. Contentra Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Nikhil Pal High Court of Delhi
30-08-2019 Siemens Enterprise Communications Ptv Ltd Now Known As Progility Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-08-2019 Ani Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dinesh D. Shelar High Court of Delhi
07-08-2019 Associate High Pressure Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Union Bank of India Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
23-07-2019 M/s. N.L. Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam South, Represented by C.V. Varghese, Director, Irinjalakuda Versus Commissioner of Customs, Cochin High Court of Kerala
17-07-2019 S/s Bright Technologies Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-07-2019 Pawan Kumar Kohli & Another Versus State of J&K High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
04-06-2019 Ashok Dashrath Rana Versus Edit II Production Binaifer Sanjay Kohli & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-05-2019 Amarnath Versus H.C.L. Infosystem Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-05-2019 Arjun Technologies (India) Ltd Versus Karur K.C.P. Packagings Ltd National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
17-05-2019 Manav Kohli Versus Ranjana & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
25-04-2019 Exelan Networking Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Premdoss Samson, Adyar & Others Versus M/s. Cadensworth India Limited, Merged with M/s. Redington India Ltd., Rep. by K. Shanmugam, Senior Manager Accounts, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-04-2019 Sujata Kohli Versus The State & Others High Court of Delhi
10-04-2019 M/s. Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Directors & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, By the Inspector of Police, Mumbai & Another High Court of Karnataka
28-03-2019 Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Joint Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-03-2019 NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shivamogga Smart City Limited A Public Limited & Another High Court of Karnataka
05-03-2019 Income Tax Officer Versus Smartchem Technologies Ltd. Supreme Court of India
27-02-2019 Veisa Technologies Versus Assistant, Commissioner of Income Tax & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2019 M/s. DVB Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST & Excise, Siliguri Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Regional Bench Kolkata
12-02-2019 Kirpal Kohli Versus Khairati Lal High Court of Delhi
21-01-2019 P. Murali Versus M/s. Airmedia Technologies Chennai Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Nirmala Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2019 B. Shekar & Another Versus Stanpower Technologies Hyderabad, Rep. by its Partner Timothy Prakash & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-01-2019 Sonika Kapoor Versus M/s. Kohli Nursing Home & Maternity Centre & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
21-12-2018 Surinder Singh Kohli Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-12-2018 Endurance Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
16-11-2018 K.M. Projects & Technologies (Pvt) Ltd., Rep.,by its authorized signatory A. Suresh Kumar, Chennai Versus M/s. Bhanu Constructions Co.Ltd., (A1) Rep.,by its Managing Director B.V. Rao & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2018 M/s. FCI Technologies Services Limited, Cochin Versus THE Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
06-11-2018 Samir Agrawal A-206 Versus ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Others Competition Commission of India
02-11-2018 Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited, Chennai & Others Versus Netsweeper Inc, A Company having its registered office at Ontario, Canada, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, N. Krishnan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-10-2018 Swaranjeet Singh Versus Melco Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-10-2018 Sahil Kohli Versus Registrar of Trade Mark Intellectual Property Appellate Board
15-10-2018 Income Tax Office, Ward-1(4) Versus Covidh Technologies Limited Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad
15-10-2018 Vsoft Technologies Private Versus Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad
12-10-2018 HCL Technologies Ltd, ELCOT, Madurai Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Deputy Inspector of Labour,III Circle, Madurai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-09-2018 M/s. Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory, P. Kailasam & Another Versus M/s.R.G. Network @ M/s.Raghavendra Cable Vision, Represented by N.M. Devaraj High Court of Karnataka
20-09-2018 Advanced Creative Technologies Limited Versus D4 Cash Investors Limited Court of Appeal of New Zealand
12-09-2018 Meru Consultants & Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Director V. Subramanian, Chennai Versus The Commissioner, Chennai City Municipal Corporation, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2018 The Acit, Corp Circle-291) Versus M/s. Prudent Technologies P. Ltd Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin
28-08-2018 Pawan Kohli Versus Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Another High Court of Delhi
24-08-2018 Bizdata Technologies Pvt. Ltd Versus Ito Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
23-08-2018 M/s. KHEC Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Authorized Representative Paraman, Chennai Versus R.S. Gowrishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2018 M/s. Bebo Technologies Pvt. Ltd Versus Dcit, Mohali Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh
16-08-2018 Atcom Technologies Ltd. Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
14-08-2018 Simbus Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru Versus Vector E-Commerce Private Limited, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
08-08-2018 M/s. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd. Versus Macquarie Bank Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
06-08-2018 M/s. Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Archana Verma High Court of Delhi
01-08-2018 Transvahan Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, S.R. Venkatesan & Another Versus Sepson India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Executive Director/ Chief Executive Officer, Ananthraj Hardar Nabhiraj & Others High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2018 KLA Construction Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Chadha Sugar & Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
30-07-2018 Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation through its partner & Others Versus Sarine Technologies Ltd. Supreme Court of India
30-07-2018 Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Versus C.C. Ahmedabad Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
30-07-2018 South Delhi Municipal Corporation Versus Shri Irmeet Singh Kohli High Court of Delhi
24-07-2018 D.V. Verma & Others Versus Pawan Kumar Kohli High Court of Delhi
24-07-2018 THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI High Court of Delhi
17-07-2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore & Another Versus M/s. Symbol Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
17-07-2018 Tiebeam Technologies India Private Limited, (formerly Solix Systems Private Limited), Represented by its Director Prmelatha Gundavelli Versus The State of Telangana, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
16-07-2018 M/s. Intelsys Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-07-2018 M/s. Binsys Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus High Court at Calcutta & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-07-2018 Alkraft Thermo Technologies Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
11-07-2018 Pamela Manmohan Singh Versus K.V. Kohli High Court of Delhi
04-07-2018 Arbinder Singh Kohli & Another Versus Gobind Kaur Kohli High Court of Delhi
03-07-2018 M/s. Enable Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shankar Krishna Murthy High Court of Delhi
03-07-2018 Infoplus Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director, Sakunthala Devi Versus Pondicherry University represented by its Registrar, Puducherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-07-2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru & Another Versus M/s. Akamai Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
21-06-2018 Ducon Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
15-06-2018 Armaan Kohli Versus Neeru Randhwa & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-06-2018 HCL Infosystems Ltd. Unit - III V/S Commissioner of GST & CCE, Pondicherry Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
01-06-2018 M/s. Celex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Through Director/authorized Signatory Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
01-06-2018 Satnam Chand Kohli & Another Versus Satyam Construction Co. & Others High Court of Delhi
29-05-2018 Axiscades Aerospace & Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Axis Aerospace & Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi