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



Rasi Travels & Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another v/s Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd., A company having its Registered Office at Janpath, New Delhi & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- A M TRAVELS AND CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63040DL1993PTC052131

Company & Directors' Information:- E-CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2011PTC226026

Company & Directors' Information:- IN TRAVELS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60200DL1996PTC080634

Company & Directors' Information:- A.T. TRAVELS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1988PTC030614

Company & Directors' Information:- CHENNAI CARGO COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63012TN2003PTC052247

Company & Directors' Information:- X TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090TG2011PTC076909

    Original Side Appeal Nos. 240 & 299 of 2019 & CMP. No. 20905 of 2019

    Decided On, 05 February 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

    For the Appearing Parties: P. Giridharan, Karthik Ram Mohan for S. Ramasubramaniam & Associates, Advocates.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Original Side Appeals are filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 30.04.2019 made in O.P.Nos.247 and 248 of 2019.)

Common Judgment:

M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. As both the appeals arise out of the common order passed by the learned single Judge in O.P.Nos.247 and 248 of 2019 on 30.04.2019 involving the same award, they are taken up together and disposed of by way of a common judgment.

2. For the same of brevity, the appellant in O.S.A.No.299 of 2019 is referred as the claimant and the appellant in O.S.A.No.240 of 2019 is referred as the first respondent while the respondent in O.S.A.No.299 of 2019 is referred as the second respondent.

3. Brief Facts:-

3.1. The claimant is the official distributor of “Global Distribution System'(hereinafter referred to as the 'GDS system') called as 'Galileo system' in Territory of India. The respondents 1 and 2 are engaged in the business of 'Travel Agency'.

3.2. 'GDS system' enables the travel agents to make bookings and reservations, such as, flight tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals through a single access point and other travel related services. Accordingly, the travel agent, who receives a request from one of his customers, can make necessary bookings /reservations for travel, stay and transport etc., through it.

3.3. Agreements have been entered into between the claimant on the one hand and the respondents on the other hand on 21.09.2007 for the usage of GDS system of the claimant. As per the terms of the agreements, the claimant has agreed to provide at his costs a requisite hardware and software for the usage of the system. The needed infrastructure is also provided by them. In furtherance of it, they also paid certain amounts to the respondents.

3.4. In turn, the respondents were to use only the 'Galileo system' of the claimant as the sole GDS in all the offices. The terms of the agreement was 36 months and the respondents were to use it from 01.10.2007. The respondents were also to generate requisite number of segments per quarter, which were nothing but bookings. The following are the relevant clauses contained in the agreements entered into.

“Important: In case of a failure to produce a minimum of 75% of the lowest slab (i.e.,8000 segments a quarter), ITQPL reserves the right to recover the cost of our investments.”

“Validity of this Offer:

This offer is valid for a minimum of 12 months and to the maximum of 36 months. Either party wishing to annul the agreement after the expiry of 12 months will have to serve a notice period of three months. If Rasi Travels and Ind Trust Travels decides to move out of Galileo after the completion of 12 months. Then the Sign up amount should be paid back to ITQPL on pro-rata basis for the balance period. Also the unadjusted upfront should be returned to ITQPL. The notice period has been fixed keeping in mind the investment that goes into setting up the terminals at your company location(s).”

“Other terms:

5. It is agreed by Rasi Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd., and Ind Trust Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd., that they will use Galileo as SOLE GDS in all their offices.

6. This offer is valid for a period of 36 months starting from October 01, 2007.”

3.5. The respondents did not comply with the terms of the agreements, legal notices were issue,d preceded by the communication sent under Exs.C6 and C7. Further legal notices were also issued under Exs.C10 to C12. Exs.C10 and C12 are pertaining to the second respondent. The first respondent has replied under Ex.C14.

3.6. The claimant approached the High Court of Delhi by filing an arbitration application in Application No.56 of 2012 invoking Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This application was filed against the second respondent. In the said application, the claimant has raised the following averments.

“4. Names and addresses of Arbitrator appointed by the Parties:

The Parties herein have not appointed any arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen out of and in terms of the Subscriber Agreement.

In view of the disputes and differences that arose between the Parties, as more particularly stated hereinafter, the Applicant invoked the Arbitration Clause as contained in Clause 3 of Other terms of the Subscriber Agreement, vide Notice for Arbitration, dated 21.10.2010 (“Arbitration Notice”), for initiation of arbitration proceedings and appointment of arbitrator in terms of the Subscriber Agreement. Respondent failed to respond to and/or comply with the Arbitration Notice and, consequently, the Applicant issued another notice, dated 02/11/2011, for appointment of an arbitrator (“Notice for Appointment”) and proposed that arbitration be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre (“DAC”), New Delhi, through a sole arbitrator appointment there from. The Applicant requested the Respondent to accord its consent to the aforesaid proposal for Arbitration by signing and returning to the Applicant, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the Notice for Appointment, the Joint Memorandum of the DAC that had been enclosed therewith. The Respondent failed and neglected to respond to the Notice for Appointment within the 30 days period stipulated therein and, thus, the Parties herein could not reach an agreement with regard to the appointment of a sole arbitrator.”

3.7. In the preliminary objection filed, an objection had been raised that the agreement is only an offer and therefore, the application is not maintainable. Consequently, the jurisdictional issue has also been raised. Before the Delhi High Court, the claimant filed requisite document, including the legal notice dated 22.11.2011 (Ex.C12), along with the original postal receipt and original acknowledgement card. Thereafter, the said application was withdrawn in view of the objections raised in the maintainability qua the forum. Orders, thereafter, have been obtained from this Court leading to arbitration proceedings.

3.8. The claimant initiated arbitration proceedings before the learned Arbitrator against both the respondents. While the first respondent made submissions on merit while taking the plea that the other document filed and marked as Ex.C1 is tampered apart from being a photo copy and therefore, cannot be looked into.

3.9. The first respondent took up the plea of limitation on the premise that the notice mandated under Section 21-A of the Act has not been served.

3.10. The learned Arbitrator framed the following issues.

“1. Whether the offer made by the claimant under offer Number ITPL/BLR/044-1912(agreement) was made to the Respondents 1 and 2 jointly or individually?

2. Whether the Respondents have used Galileo as the Sole GDS in all their offices as per the terms of the Agreement dated 21.09.2007?

3. Whether the Respondents were to jointly or individually generate the segments under the agreement bearing number ITPL/BLR/044-1912 dated 21.09.2007?

4. Whether the Respondents have jointly or individually achieved the minimum number of segments per quarters as per the Agreement dated 21.09.2007?

5. Whether the Respondents have violated the provisions of the Agreement dated 21.09.2007?

6. Whether the Claimant/Respondents have filed a forged/fabricated copy of the agreement entered between the parties?

7. Whether the termination of the agreement by the claimant is wrongful?

8. Whether the arbitration claim is barred by limitation?

9. Whether the Claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amounts prayed for under prayers a,b,c and d of the Claim Statement?

10. Whether the Claimant is entitled to costs?

11. To what reliefs are the parties entitled to?”

3.11. After answering the issues, it was held that Ex.C1 filed by the first respondent alone is fabricated. On the question of limitation, the learned Arbitrator was pleased to hold that having participated in the earlier proceedings, it is not open to the second respondent to take a contra stand.

3.12. Accordingly, an award was passed against the respondents. Both of them have filed appeals before this Court invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The learned single Judge while dismissing O.P.No.248 of 2019 filed by the first respondent, allowed the O.P.No.247 of 2019 filed by the claimant on the sole ground of limitation on 30.04.2019. Thus, both the appeals are before us.

4. Submissions of the Claimant:-

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that there is a concurrent finding given on the genuinity of Ex.C1 as against the first respondent. It is the first respondent, who fabricated the documents. Even otherwise, the learned Arbitrator has given a finding on the question of failure to produce the minimum of 75% of the lowest slab and the usage of the system belonging to others.

4.2. Insofar as the O.S.A.No.299 of 2019 is concerned, it is submitted that the learned single Judge has committed an error in ignoring Ex.C19, which contains entire documents and proceedings before the Delhi High Court pertaining to Section 11 application, this shows not only the legal notice is not in tune with Section 21-A of the Act, but also the original acknowledgement. It is further submitted that as per the clause containing other terms, particularly, sub clause No.6, the offer is valid for a period of thirty six months starting from October 1, 2007. Thus, looking from any perspective, the claim petition is well within the limitation. The respondent did not even raise any plea before the Delhi High court. Therefore, the appeal in O.S.A.No.299 of 2019 has to be allowed and the appeal in O.S.A.No.240 of 2019 has to be dismissed.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents What has been marked is only a photo copy and objection was raised for its production. Therefore, the learned single Judge was not right in observing that no such objection is raised. Though the rules of evidence are not strictly applicable, the principle governing will have to be taken into consideration. The claim is barred by the limitation. There is no evidence to show that the notice has been served on the second respondent. Thus, O.S.A.No.240 of 2019 has to be allowed and O.S.A.No.299 of 2019 has to be dismissed. To butress his submissions, he relied on the following decisions.

1. Pradyuman Kumar Sharma and others V. Jaysagar M.Sancheti and Others (Manu/MH/0244/2013);

2. J.Naval Kishore V. D.Swarna Bhadran and others (Manu/TN/9130/2007).

6. DISCUSSION:-

6.1. Let us first take O.S.A.No.240 of 2019. We find, the learned Arbitrator and the learned single Judge has given clear finding with respect to the genuineness of Ex.C1. In the case on hand, both the parties have filed photo copies. The learned Arbitrator found the difference in the fonts. Though the Managing Director of the first respondent has deposed before the learned Arbitrator, he has stated that he did not remember the name of the representative of the claimant who made the interpolation. Secondly, the brother of the second respondent has also not been examined. Before the District Court of Patiyala, Delhi, the claimant filed Arbitration Application under Section 9 of the Act for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and Arbitration application No.56 of 2012 before the Delhi High Court. The photo copy of Ex.C1 was filed therein, for which, no objection was raised. Similarly is the case with respect to the questionings before this Court in O.P.No.206 of 2013. Further more, R.W.1 has even denied the signature and the round seal found in the other documents viz., Ex.C4 to C6. Ex.C7-registered notice was also not objected. In the said legal notice, the claimant has stated that the first respondent has not complied the minimum number of claims in a quarter. There was not even a reply to the legal notice sent by it.

6.2. In such view of the matter, the findings recorded by the learned Arbitrator cannot be assailed as perverse or without any evidence. We may note, the findings of fact are also to the effect that there is a breach on the part of the travel agencies with respect to the segment and usage of others' software. Therefore, the objection raised was rightly found to be not genuine by the learned arbitrator while holding Ex.R1 is a forged and fabricated document of Ex.C1. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the first respondent are not relevant to the facts of the case. In such view of the matter, O.S.A.No.240 of 2019 reserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

6.3. O.S.A.No.299 of 2019 is concerned, the learned single Judge allowed the O.P.No.2

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

47 of 2019 filed under Section 34 of the Act insofar as the second respondent is concerned. We may note that as per the terms of the agreement, especially clauses governing other terms with respect to the offer, is valid for 36 months starting from October 2007. If this is taken into consideration, the claim is well within the limitation. Much has been said on the notice sent initiating proceedings under Exs C10 and C12. Insofar as C12 is concerned, it is the second legal notice sent by the claimant's counsel to the respondent dated 01.11.2011. A specific averment has been made in this regard in the petition filed before the Delhi High court while invoking Section 11(5) of the Act. Though a preliminary objection has been raised with respect to the other legal issues, no objection has been raised on this averment. In fact, the entire documents along with Ex.C11 and the original acknowledgement of the legal notice were filed in the form of Ex.C19 before the learned Arbitrator. 7. In such view of the matter, the finding of the learned single Judge that there is no material to establish the service of notice cannot be sustained. Thus, we are of the considered view, the learned single Judge has not taken note of the abovesaid aspects. Accordingly, the order passed in O.P.No.247 of 2019 insofar as the second respondent is concerned stands set aside. Consequently, the said application stands dismissed and O.S.A.No.299 of 2019 is allowed. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-04-2020 Creative Travel Pvt. Ltd. Versus Creative Tours And Travels (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Bettiah Lokesh, Managing Director, Triway Travels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Versus N. Ramesh, Accredited Representative of Sangam Travels, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 Aviation Travels Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bhavesha Suresh Goradia & Others Supreme Court of India
25-02-2020 M/s. Tridev Express Cargo, West Bengal Versus IPSITA Saha, West Bengal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2020 M/s. Tridev Express Cargo Versus IPSITA Saha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 M/s. KPN Travels India Limited, Puducherry V/S The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade I, Tuticorin & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 ICICI Bank Ltd V/S Puneet Cargo Express Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
08-01-2020 Vinayak Cargo V/S Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
06-01-2020 The Commissioner of Customs, (Airport-Cargo), Chennai Versus Medreich Sterilab Ltd, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 M/s. Sam Tours & Travels Versus R. Kavitha & Another High Court of Karnataka
28-11-2019 S. Dayanidhi Versus Visesh Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-10-2019 C.P. Ajithkumar, Proprietor, Suburban Travels, Mamangalam (President, Travel, Operators Association of Kerala) & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, (Roads), Govt. Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
13-09-2019 APM Air Cargo Terminal Services & Another Versus Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Private Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
04-09-2019 Associated Cargo Movers & Packers Private Limited Versus Hanumant & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
27-08-2019 Madurai Omni Bus Travels Owners Welfare Association, (a registered society), Through its President and Secretary, Madurai Versus The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Transport Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-08-2019 Seematai & Others Versus Shreenath Cargo Company Agent and Authorized Transport Through its Proprietor & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
07-08-2019 Ajay Travels Versus Dr. Pulak Jain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-08-2019 Yahoo Tour & Travels & Another Versus Dr. Akash Lalwani & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2019 M/s. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. & Another Versus Vijeesh Kumar Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
03-05-2019 Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s. D.S. Cargo Agency, Prop.Sh. Diva Kant Jha Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
30-04-2019 Siddesh Tours and Travels (Prop.Shri Rajendra Ramdas Yerandekar) Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai VII Commissionerate High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2019 Ind Trust Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Versus Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 Commissioner of Customs (Air), Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakam Versus M/s. Wipro Ltd., Bangalore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-03-2019 M/s. Anjali Tours & Travels & Others Versus The Recovery Officer, Co-operative Societies, Dept. of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-03-2019 Uni Air Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sharons Link Logistics & Others High Court of Delhi
29-01-2019 Abdul Rahiman Khader Versus Airlines Travels & Haji Umrah & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-11-2018 A.G. Northern Tour & Travels Versus State of J&K, Through Sho Tourist Police Station High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
30-10-2018 DTDC Couriers & Cargo Ltd. & Another Versus Mukesh Sethi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-10-2018 G. Karnan Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Air cargo), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-10-2018 Dixons Cargo Consolidators Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Goa & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-10-2018 Amtrex Hitachi Appliance Ltd. & Another Versus M/s. Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-09-2018 M/s. A.P. Travels & Tours (I) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Anand Palanisamy Versus M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2018 M/s. Manish Travels, Through Its Proprietor Versus Regional Transport Authority, Bastar (C.G.) High Court of Chhattisgarh
06-08-2018 Ashish Verma Versus D.T.D.C. Courier & Cargo Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-08-2018 M/s. Kandla Cargo Handlers Versus M/s. Container Corporation of India Ltd. & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-07-2018 NCS Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Arihant Rampuria & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
19-07-2018 J.V.I. Durairaj Versus M/s. Cargo Partner Logistic India Private Limited, Represented by its Power Agent, M/s. N. Subah High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-07-2018 DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others V/S Commissioner of Customs (II), (Air Special Cargo), Mumbai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
12-07-2018 Sahara One Media & Entertainment Ltd V/S Commissioner of Customs (II), (Air Special Cargo), Mumbai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
04-07-2018 Biplab Kumar Das & Others Versus Dolphin Travels Domestic Tour Operators & Hotelier & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-06-2018 Immanuel Aviation & Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Rosy Panackal Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Transport (C) Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
18-06-2018 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Gati Desk to Desk Cargo & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-06-2018 Dixon Cargo Consolidators Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
31-05-2018 Abdul Rahiman Abdul Khader Versus Rafique, Partner, Airline Travels & Haji Umrah, Kasaragod & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
22-05-2018 The Manager, DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. & Another Versus Tapas Kumar Roy West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-05-2018 Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai V/S Skylift Cargo (P) Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
08-05-2018 Exim Cargo Services V/S CC, New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
23-04-2018 Redington (India) Ltd V/S Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Cargo), Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
19-04-2018 Bhavesha Suresh Goradia & Another Versus Aviation Travels Pvt Ltd & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-04-2018 MEC Engineers ( India), Airapuram P.O, Keezhillam, Perumbavoor, Cochin, Represented by Deepu Ranjit, Managing Partner, M/s Mec. Engineers Versus The Manager DTDC Courier & Cargo, XIV 768 Kandooth Buildings, Kacherithazham, Muvattupuzha & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
21-03-2018 Fast Cargo Movers and Others V/S Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
20-03-2018 SOTC Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Gopinath Mondal & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-03-2018 Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd Versus Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd Supreme Court of Singapore
28-02-2018 India Public Travels rep. by Mohammed Versus The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
15-02-2018 Auto Cars Versus Trimurti Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
31-01-2018 Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
30-01-2018 Thirumurthy S/o. Avanashi Gounder Formerly Superintendent Air Cargo Complex(ACC) Coimbatore Versus Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Police Establishment, Anti Corruption Branch, Haddows Road, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2018 Thirumurthy S/o.Avanashi Gounder Formerly Superintendent Air Cargo Complex(ACC) Coimbatore Versus Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Police Establishment, Anti Corruption Branch, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2018 KVS Cargo V/S Commissioner of Customs (Gen), New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
19-01-2018 Global Integrated Bulkers Pte. Ltd. Versus Cargo of 14,072.337 Mts Of) Limestone & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-01-2018 Akbar Travels India Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of C. Ex., Lucknow Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Allahabad
08-12-2017 M/s. Blessing Cargo Care Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director & Another Versus The Commissioner of Customs Chennai VIII Commissionerate High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-12-2017 Kanpur Cargo Movers V/S Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
15-11-2017 ICOMM Tele Limited V/S Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Air Cargo), Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
14-11-2017 Passage Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Rep by it?s Director R.S. Sandh Versus Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Rep. by Senior Manager, Visakhapatnam & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
09-11-2017 Total Courier & Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd V/S CC (Airport Cargo), Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
04-10-2017 Techno Doors Pvt. Ltd V/S CC (Airport & Cargo), Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
04-10-2017 ICS Cargo V/S C.C.E., New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
21-09-2017 KVS Cargo V/S Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
15-09-2017 M/s. Sonitech Travels Co. Versus Centre For Vocational Training & Entrepreneurship Studies National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
12-09-2017 Alpha Future Airport Retail Private Ltd V/S C.C.E., New Delhi (Air Cargo Export) Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
07-09-2017 SIS Live V/S C.C.E., New Delhi (Air Cargo Export) Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
05-09-2017 Amar Travels India V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
04-09-2017 Govan Travels V/S CCE, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
24-08-2017 Kabra Brothers Versus Speed Cargo Movers Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-08-2017 The Manager, DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. & Another Versus Rashmi Thacker West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-08-2017 Rashmi Thacker Versus The Manager, DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-08-2017 International Cargo Agents V/S CC, Tuticorin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
16-08-2017 M/s. International Cargo Agents Versus CC, Tuticorin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
09-08-2017 Rasi Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
04-08-2017 CC, New Delhi V/S Stone Travels (P) Ltd. and Others. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
25-07-2017 Indo Cargo Trading Services V/S Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
04-07-2017 Radheshyam Tourism Versus Radheshyam Travels Private Limited High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
29-06-2017 M/s. Southern Cargo & Logistics Versus The Chief Commercial Manager, Western Railway Station, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-06-2017 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd V/S C.C., New Delhi (Air Cargo Export) Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
19-06-2017 Paramount Cargo & Logistic Solutions and Others V/S CC (ICD), New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
19-06-2017 Reliance Transport & Travels Limited and Others V/S CC, New Delhi (Import & General) Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
15-06-2017 Chaturvedi Travels & Tours V/S C.C.E. & S.T. Indore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
05-06-2017 All Cargo Logistics Ltd. & Others Versus Union of India, Through the Secretary Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-06-2017 M/s. Wavoo Jewelers Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director M.M. Maznavi Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, (Airport), New Custom House, Air Cargo Complex, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2017 M/s. Wavoo Jewelers Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director M.M. Maznavi Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, (Airport), New Custom House, Air Cargo Complex, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-05-2017 Exceisior Travels (P) Ltd V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
15-05-2017 Ankur Carrier Express Cargo Service Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-05-2017 Sangam International and Others V/S C.C., Air Cargo (Export), New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
04-05-2017 SDU Travels Pvt. Ltd. Versus Vipin Sharma High Court of Delhi
20-04-2017 Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi V/S Dewan Travels Pvt. Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
04-04-2017 Teras Offshore Pte Ltd. Versus Teras Cargo Transport (America) LLC Supreme Court of Singapore
30-03-2017 Innovative Cargo Services V/S Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
30-03-2017 Commr. of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T., Mysore V/S Rajesh Tours and Travels Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
27-03-2017 Kunal Travels (Cargo) Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi High Court of Delhi