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



Rama Krishna Electro Components Pvt. Ltd. v/s M/s. High Ground Enterprises Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- G E ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC038443

Company & Directors' Information:- R A ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071831

Company & Directors' Information:- KRISHNA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC064252

Company & Directors' Information:- R K ENTERPRISES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909CH1984PTC005941

Company & Directors' Information:- R K ENTERPRISES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51901HR1985PTC020754

Company & Directors' Information:- H G ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC040432

Company & Directors' Information:- S KRISHNA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25209DL1989PTC124573

Company & Directors' Information:- S. KRISHNA & COMPANY PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U25191WB1989PTC046821

Company & Directors' Information:- K. E. ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900UP2009PTC038446

Company & Directors' Information:- KRISHNA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED . [Strike Off] CIN = U16000DL1989PTC037800

Company & Directors' Information:- RAMA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51101RJ1982PTC002485

Company & Directors' Information:- COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC053325

Company & Directors' Information:- RAMA KRISHNA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U55101HR2014PTC052714

    CS(COMM). No. 599 of 2017

    Decided On, 23 July 2018

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

    For the Plaintiff: A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Defendant: Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate, Anil Kaushik, Abhishek Mishra, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Oral:

CS(COMM) 599/2017 and I.A. 21483/2014

1. This is an application under Order XXXVII CPC seeking unconditional leave to defend.

2. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis of MoU/term sheet dated 27th April, 2011. As per the said MoU, the Plaintiff invested a sum of Rs.2 crores in the Defendant’s project for their forthcoming film ‘Bhindi Baazaar Inc.’. There is no dispute that the sum of Rs.2 crores was paid to the Defendants. It is the submission of the Plaintiff that after the MoU dated 27th April, 2011 was executed, further amounts of Rs.25 lakhs each were also paid by cheques dated 13th June, 2011 and 15th June, 2011. Thus the total payment made was a sum of Rs. 2.5 crores. The Defendant did not repay the amounts despite repeated requests, as per the Plaintiff, leading to the filing of the present suit for recovery under Order XXXVII.

3. Upon the Plaintiff moving summons for judgment, the Defendant filed a Leave to Defendant application and claimed that it had repaid a sum of Rs.1.5 crores. This fact was suppressed by the Plaintiff. It was further submitted that the additional sum of Rs.50 lakhs being outside the scope of the MoU which mentioned only a sum of Rs. 2 crores, the Order XXXVII suit cannot be extended to the said sum of Rs.50 lakhs.

4. On 9th March, 2018, the Plaintiff agreed to restrict the suit for a sum of Rs.1.74 crores as recorded in the order therein.

5. The counsel for the Plaintiff relies on the clauses of the agreement to argue that the Plaintiff is entitled to the minimum guaranteed sum as stated in clause 5. Since he has already agreed to restrict the claim in the present suit, a decree deserves to be passed.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Counsel for the Defendant submits that the fact that Plaintiff now agrees to restrict the amount, itself shows that a triable issue has been raised. It is further submitted that since facts relating to the various payments made have been suppressed, the suit is not maintainable. He has pointed out the various e-mails exchanged between the parties filed along with the leave to defend application, to submit that unconditional leave deserves to be granted.

7. The law in respect of Order XXXVII suits is well settled. In IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd., (2017) 1 SCC 568, the Supreme Court held as under:

'17. Accordingly, the principles stated in para 8 of Mechelec case [Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corpn., (1976) 4 SCC 687] will now stand superseded, given the amendment of Order 37 Rule 3 and the binding decision of four Judges in Milkhiram case [Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd. v. Chamanlal Bros., AIR 1965 SC 1698 : (1966) 68 Bom LR 36] , as follows:

17.1. If the defendant satisfies the court that he has a substantial defence, that is, a defence that is likely to succeed, the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit.

17.2. If the defendant raises triable issues indicating that he has a fair or reasonable defence, although not a positively good defence, the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment, and the defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend.

17.3. Even if the defendant raises triable issues, if a doubt is left with the trial Judge about the defendant's good faith, or the genuineness of the triable issues, the trial Judge may impose conditions both as to time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court or furnishing security. Care must be taken to see that the object of the provisions to assist expeditious disposal of commercial causes is not defeated. Care must also be taken to see that such triable issues are not shut out by unduly severe orders as to deposit or security.

17.4. If the defendant raises a defence which is plausible but improbable, the trial Judge may impose conditions as to time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court, or furnishing security. As such a defence does not raise triable issues, conditions as to deposit or security or both can extend to the entire principal sum together with such interest as the court feels the justice of the case requires.

17.5. If the defendant has no substantial defence and/or raises no genuine triable issues, and the court finds such defence to be frivolous or vexatious, then leave to defend the suit shall be refused, and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith.

17.6. If any part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit, (even if triable issues or a substantial defence is raised), shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in court.'

8. This court has perused the MoU and the various e-mails. A reading of the e-mails makes it clear that there is no serious dispute between the parties in respect of the transaction itself. The e-mails exchanged between the parties repeatedly show demands having been made for the outstanding amounts and part payments being made by the Defendant. Therefore, neither party can dispute the factum of the loan having been given and the part payments having been made. As per the e-mails and also as admitted by the Plaintiff, a total sum of Rs.1.5 crores has been repaid by the Defendant on the following dates:

i. 12th August, 2011 – Rs.50 lakhs;

ii. 24th October, 2011 – Rs.50 lakhs;

iii. 10th November, 2011 – Rs. 25 lakhs;

iv. 16th January, 2012 – Rs.25 lakhs.

9. In fact, in the e-mail dated 10th November, 2011, the outstanding balance is also mentioned as Rs.1.25 crores. Further, three cheques dated 31st December 2011, 15th January 2012 and 1st February 2012, have also been issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1.25 crores. This shows that out of the total payment of Rs.2.5 crores, the Defendant admits to Rs.1.25 crores being due which is also in line with the averments made above. However, since a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs has been paid subsequently, i.e., on 16th January 2012, Defendant is entitled to credit of the same. Thus the outstanding is Rs. 1 crore.

10. The Defendant having repaid a sum of Rs.1.5 crores and the same being admitted now, the claim relating to Rs.1.5 crores and for proportionate interest is not maintainable. Insofar as the outstanding sum of Rs.1 crore is concerned, the cheques issued by the Defendant make it abundantly clear that a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

s of 1st February 2012, Rs. 1 crore is due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. No triable issues thus arise in this case in respect of the outstanding sum of Rs. 1 crore. However, since the Plaintiff had not candidly disclosed to the court in its plaint that it had received part payments, no interest is liable to be granted to the Plaintiff. A decree for a sum of Rs.1 crore is passed in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant. The same shall be paid within 8 weeks, failing which, interest @ 12% would be liable to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on the decretal amount. 11. The suit is decreed in the above terms with no orders as to costs. Suit is disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-06-2020 Integrated Enterprises India Ltd. & Another Versus Ippili Krishna Surekha Rao & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-06-2020 Krishna Pandey Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-06-2020 Krishna Terine Prints Private Limited Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
26-05-2020 Suneet Kumar Versus Krishna Kumar Agarwal High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-05-2020 V.K. Dayanand & Others Versus Kitty @ Krishna Reddy & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-05-2020 Aravapalli Krishna Murthy Versus Syed Lal Saheb Died & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-05-2020 M/s. Krishna Timber & Plywood Versus State of Tamilnadu, rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, CT & Re Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-05-2020 Sri Rama Enterprises Versus State Bank of India High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 AVR Enterprises Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
07-05-2020 Mondi Murali Krishna Versus Dumpa Hanisha Naga Lakshmi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-04-2020 Align Components Pvt. Ltd., & Another Versus Union of India & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
17-04-2020 Shankar Sakharam Kenjale (Died) Through His Legal Heirs Versus Narayan Krishna Gade & Another Supreme Court of India
16-04-2020 M. Murali Krishna Goud & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Stamps and Registration Department Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi Guntur District Andhra Pradesh State & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-03-2020 Bala Krishna Mandapati Versus The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Chief Secretary, Revenue (Disaster Management-II), Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-03-2020 Prabhat Krishna Verma @ Babloo Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-03-2020 D. Krishna Versus State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-03-2020 Krishna Enterprise & Others Versus Axis Bank Limited & Another` High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-03-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur Versus M/s. Chetak Enterprises Private Limited Supreme Court of India
03-03-2020 M/s. Deluxe Enterprises, H.P. Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Punjab National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-03-2020 M/s. Nitish Enterprises, Stockist & Commission Agents, Vaikam & Others Versus Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd, having its Registered office at Bangalore, Regional cum Branch office at Chennai, Rep. by its Authorized Representative, S. Muthaian High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 Vikas Aggarwal Versus Bal Krishna Gupta & Others High Court of Delhi
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
27-02-2020 M/s. Hansa Enterprises, Rep by its Proprietrix Pinky Jain Versus The Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Prosound Products Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Partner Pradeep Ahuja & Another Versus John Enterprises, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 M/s. NUDPL Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Versus Saiprasad Natarajan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2020 M/s. Zee Telefilms Ltd. (Now Known as Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.) Versus Suresh Productions & Others Supreme Court of India
24-02-2020 The Commissioner, Treasuries & Accounts, Chennai & Others Versus Krishna P. Nair Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-02-2020 Batliboi Renewable Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Batliboi EnXco Pvt. Ltd.,) Represented by Rajiv, Senior Manager (Accounts) Versus M/s. Sri Vinayaga Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor R. Ganesan High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-02-2020 BWCI Pension Trustees Limited Versus Estra Enterprises Private Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 Gangaram Rambhau Doiphode & Another Versus D. Kumar Naidu, Proprietor of M/s. Shree Krishna Transport & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-02-2020 Talari Krishna Versus State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-02-2020 E.V. Gopalakrishnan Versus Ashin Krishna High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 Airport Authority of India, Represented by Its Chairperson, New Delhi & Others Versus B. Sham Krishna & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Antikeros Shipping Corporation Versus Adani Enterprises Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-02-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited A Government of India Enterprises, Delhi & Others Versus Gopal Prasad Jaiswal High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-02-2020 M/s. Kumar Enterprises A Registerd Partnership Firm, Represented by its Manager R. Shivakumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary Ministry of Coal & Mines Department of Mines Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-02-2020 The Superintending Engineer, General Construction, TANTRANSCO Ltd., Tatabad, Coimbatore & Another Versus Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Director of Industries and Commerce, Represented by its Chairman, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Jitendra Kumar Khoiya Versus Shri Krishna Motors, Jhansi Road, Sakhiya Vilas & Others Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
13-02-2020 Dr. Monidipa Ghosh Versus M/s. Rosni Enterprises Rep. by sole prop., Prabuddha Bhattacharyya & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Masu Krishna Chavan & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-02-2020 Krishna Shri Gupta Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 M/s. Anusha Enterprises Rep.by its Managing Partner C.K.Nafrasimha Rao, Chennai Versus Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy General Services Organisation Kalpakkam & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Rakesh Malhotra Versus Krishna Malhotra Supreme Court of India
07-02-2020 Syndicate Bank V/S Alaknanda Enterprises and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
07-02-2020 Binoy Krishna Dey & Another Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-02-2020 Jongam Krishna Kanth V/S Andhra Bank and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
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
05-02-2020 Patcha Subrahmanyam Versus Chenna Krishna Rao & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
04-02-2020 M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises represented by its Proprietor R. Devika Versus The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Commercial Branch, Park Town Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Swami Chinmayanand Alias Krishna Pal Singh Versus State of U.P High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
03-02-2020 Bank of Baroda V/S M.S. Enterprises and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Aurangabad
31-01-2020 Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
28-01-2020 Kotak Investment Advisors Limited & Others Versus Krishna Chamadia, Resolution Professional of Ricoh India Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-01-2020 Krishna Pada Poddar Versus ABS Land Development and Construction Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Tapan Ghosh West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-01-2020 Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, P. Sivanantham, Salem Versus Narasu's Saarathy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, M.V. Balasubramanian, Salem High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 Krishna Ram Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
23-01-2020 D.T.C Versus Krishna Bahal High Court of Delhi
23-01-2020 Krishna Saikia @ Biman Versus State of Assam High Court of Gauhati
21-01-2020 Krishna Daga & Another Versus West Bengal Surface Transport Corporation Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-01-2020 M/s. Harinath Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, G. Kaspa Reddy & Others Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-01-2020 M/s. Allied Enterprises Versus Rekha Basu & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-01-2020 M/s. J.P. Electrical Enterprises Chandrapur Prop. Priyavanda & Others Versus The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
10-01-2020 M/s.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Chennai Versus Nirmal Kumar Maheswari Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Jaaacsons Enterprises V/S C.C.E. & S.T.-Mangalore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Bangalore
09-01-2020 Chowgule Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Krishna Shrikant Kumbhar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-01-2020 Maj Pankaj Rai Versus Krishna Veni Rai, Nee Krishnaveni Challa High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-01-2020 Rajareddy Versus R. Krishna Reddy (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Kasaraneni Balarama Krishna @ Balarama Krishnaiah Versus Kasaraneni Srikanth High Court of Andhra Pradesh
07-01-2020 Kasaraneni Balarama Krishna @ Balarama Krishnaiah Versus Kasaraneni Rajasree High Court of Andhra Pradesh
07-01-2020 Koovam Krishna Reddy & Others Versus M. Arumugam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 Bank of Baroda V/S Sri Krishna Minerals and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Cuttack
03-01-2020 Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. & Another Versus V. Srinivas Rao & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
02-01-2020 Allahabad Bank V/S Om Sai Enterprises and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna
02-01-2020 M/s. QuestNet Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Pushpam Appala Naidu & Another Versus The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Egmore, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-12-2019 M/s. Sai Krishna Alloys, Rep. by its Partner, N. Anbalagan Versus The Superintending Engineer (Metro) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-12-2019 Pran Krishna Shil @ Sil Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-12-2019 Capt. M.S. Krishna Kumar, "Lakshmi Krishna", Chennai Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-12-2019 Global United Shipping India Private Limited, (formerly known as Jalhansa Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.), Represented by its Director, Prem Kumar Menon, Chennai Versus Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 Rama Krishna & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary Industries and Commerce Mines Department A P Secretariat Velagapudi Guntur District A.P. & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-12-2019 Suja Merine Thomas Versus Krishna Pillai High Court of Kerala
18-12-2019 M/s. MCP Enterprises, Thrissur, Represented by Its' Executive Partner, M.C. Mohammed Kutty & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Taxes Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
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
17-12-2019 Shree Shantadurga Kumbhar – Juvekarin Versus Shree Devaki Krishna Devasthan, Through its President Dr. Jaikrishna Lawande & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
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
13-12-2019 S. Krishna Sradha V/S The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others. Supreme Court of India
10-12-2019 V. Radha Krishna & Others Versus State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Co-operative Societies Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-12-2019 P.T. Joseph, Proprietor, Cheryl Enterprises, Elamakkara, Ernakulam Versus Kabeer Husain Minanna & Others High Court of Kerala
06-12-2019 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Krishna Kumar Pandey Supreme Court of India
04-12-2019 M/s. S.V. Enterprises Represented by Proprietor M. Srinivas Naidu Versus V. Tulasiram High Court of Karnataka
03-12-2019 Krishna Devi & Others Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
03-12-2019 M/s. G.S. Enterprises & Another Versus Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-12-2019 Union Bank of India Versus Anjali Enterprises & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad
29-11-2019 Branch Manager, State Bank of India Versus Kali Krishna Chakraborty West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-11-2019 R. Venkataramana Reddy Versus R. Radha Krishna Reddy & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
26-11-2019 Krishna Moulik Versus Tata Motors Finance Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-11-2019 Krishna Khatri & Another Versus Balaji Hospital Pvt. Ltd. & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
18-11-2019 Deepali Versus Krishna & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-11-2019 M/s. Devashi Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor Vasanth Kumar Versus The Joint Commissioner (CT), Enforcement I, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2019 Pramod Versus Sudha Krishna Kand In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-11-2019 The State of Maharashtra Versus Manohar Krishna Naik & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


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

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

Features Intro Close Box