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



Reliance Cable Industries V/S CCE, Delhi-II


Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17110MH1973PLC019786

Company & Directors' Information:- C D INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH1996PLC101277

Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2006PLC218261

Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52190MH2006PTC218260

Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE CORPORATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1948PTC017421

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1946PTC000938

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1947PTC000501

Company & Directors' Information:- J INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101OR1960PTC000388

    Ex. Appeal Nos. 60394 of 2013, 55546 of 2014 (Arising out of order in appeal No. 139/CE/D-II/13 dt. 20.08.2013, O-I-O No. 12/2014-15 dt. 31.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-II) and Final Order Nos. 50359 - 50360/2018

    Decided On, 30 January 2018

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: DR. SATISH CHANDRA
    By, J. (PRESIDENT) AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: V. PADMANABHAN
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: V.K. Gupta and J.P. Kaushik, Advocates And For Respondents: R.K. Mishra, AR



Judgment Text


1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order in appeal No. 139/CE/D-II/13 dt. 20.08.2013 & O-I-O No. 12/2014-15 dt. 31.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-II. Both the appeals have been filed against different show cause notices but the grievances are the same.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant are manufacturing electric wires & cables. The appellant is enjoying the benefit of SSI exemption. On 08.08.2011, a search was conducted at the business premises of the appellant where the raw material, finished goods, books of accounts, loose sheets were seized. On the basis of the seized material the department has made out a case of clandestine removal. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed by the appellant.

3. With this background, we heard Sh. J.P. Kaushik, ld. Advocate for the appellant who submits that the appellant is not registered with the Central Excise department. He submits that the factory owner is Shri Lalit Jain who is not an educated person. His two statements on 08.08.2011 and 10.08.2011, which were in Hindi and in his handwriting and remaining three statements dated 30.08.2011, 11.04.2013 and 17.05.2013 were signed by Shri Lalit Jain on the printed sheet. It is his submission that he is not acquainted with the computer. Ld. Counsel further submits that there were two old extruders which are still lying in the factory. With the same, it is not possible to manufacture the goods other than the declared goods. Only one machine was found having the capacity of 72 units in one shift of eight hours. To this effect, on 06.10.2017, a certificate was obtained from Chartered Engineer where he has certified the same. His further submission is that there is no case for clandestine removal as the raw material cannot be considered for the purpose.

4. Sh. V.K. Gupta, ld. Counsel submits that the finished goods were seized value at an amount of Rs. 51,500/- and the raw material valued @ Rs. 3,72,960/- which is not unusual in the factory premises when the limit of the SSI exemption was Rs. 1.5 crore. Ld. Advocate further submits that the proper books of accounts, ledger accounts, returns were maintained and they were examined by the lower authorities. He further submits that one diary was recovered from Sh. Lalit Jain and he disowned the same submitting that it belongs to Sh. Prithibi Raj Jain who is residing with him and worked as a commission agent. He also submits that redemption fine is on higher side in proportionate to the recovered material.

5. On the other hand, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue has justified the impugned order. He submits that loose papers were recovered from the factory and he accepted the guilt. He also submits that three suppliers had confirmed that they have supplied the raw material without invoices. For this purpose, he has drawn our attention to page 10 of the order-in-original. It is the submission of the ld. AR that the appellants were selling the clandestine goods to the fake firm M/s. Universal Enterprises, Shahdara, New Delhi. The statement of Sh. Chitranjan Pradhan, Supervisor cum Operator of the appellant confirmed the same.

6. We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record.

7. The case of the Revenue is that the appellant has manufactured electric wires and cables and cleared the same clandestinely during the period 2008-09 to 2011-12 (upto 08.08.2011) without payment of Central Excise duty. The investigation gathered evidences from which it appeared that the total value of clearances made by the appellant was more than the limit specified in the small scale industries exemption notification and accordingly demand of Central Excise duty to the extent of about Rs. 1.57 crores has been made. Further, the unaccounted raw materials and finished goods found at the time of search in factory was also ordered for confiscation.

8. The main evidences on which the Revenue's case is based as summarised below.

(i) Unaccounted raw material as well as finished goods were found in the factory at the time of search on 08.08.2011.

(ii) Some loose slips and sale invoices, recovered from the factory at the time of search indicated clearances of finished products by using invoices in the name of M/s. Universal Enterprises, Shahdara to various customers. The firm in the above name was found to be not in existence at the address cited in the invoices. This firm was admitted to be a fake firm as confirmed by Sh. Chittaranjan Pradhan, Supervisor cum Operator of the appellant. Invoices of such fake firm was made use of by the appellant as cover for clandestine clearances made without payment of duty.

(iii) Certain loose papers were recovered at the time of search at the residence of Shri Lalit Jain, Prop. These loose sheets contained the details of various raw material suppliers and the quantum of such raw materials procured by the appellant. The main supplier of copper wire was M/s. Balaji Metal, Shahdara, Delhi. Sh. Naresh Gupta, Prop. M/s. Balaji Metal confirmed in his statement dated 08.08.2011 that raw materials have been supplied to the appellant by his firm. He also confirmed the total quantity of such raw material supplied to the appellant during the years 2007-10, 2010-2011 and 2011-12.

(iv) The other major raw material i.e. PVC compound was supplied by M/s. Ankur Plastic, Shahdara Prop. Vimal Kaparia. He admitted in his statement dt. 24.07.2012 that raw materials were supplied for payment in cash to the appellant. He also confirmed that the quantum of raw materials as was found in the loose papers recovered from residence of Sh. Lalit Jain was supplied to the appellant.

(v) The other suppliers also confirmed the same. During investigation, upon checking the bank account of the appellant, it was found that some of the supplied raw materials found in the loose sheets were paid for by cheque by the appellant.

(vi) Certain books/diaries were also recovered from residence of Sh. Lalit Jain. In such diaries, the details were found regarding sale of finished products. Such diaries recorded partywise, datewise, running account of sale value, receipt of sale proceeds and outstanding balance, for the period 2008-09 to 2010/2011. Upon verification of the bank account of the appellant, it was noticed that many of the sale transactions were found tallied with the credit entries in the bank account. Further, many of the entries found in the diaries were also duplicated in the loose sheets.

(vii) The investigating officers recorded the statements of Sh. Lalit Jain on 08.08.2011, 10.08.2011, 30.08.2011, 11.04.2013 and 17.05.2013. In these very detailed statements, Shri Lalit Jain has admitted the fact that raw materials were being procured often by cash without accounting. He also admitted that the finished goods were also cleared clandestinely for payments received by cheque and sometimes in cash. It is seen from the RUDs that he has confirmed in details the transactions with each of the raw materials suppliers as well as finished product purchasers.

On the basis of the above main evidences, Revenue has made the case for demand of duty on the basis of allegations of clandestine removal.

9. The main grounds on which the order has been assailed are summarized below-

(i) Sh. Lalit Jain, Prop. is only standard eight pass and is not comfortable with the use of the English language. Consequently, it has been argued that the statements recorded by him in the firm's computer were obtained under duress and dictated to him.

(ii) The manufacturing capacity of the factory was not enough to manufacture the quantum of goods alleged to have been cleared clandestinely. It has been argued that with only two extruders and winding machine the quantum of production alleged would not have been achieved.

(iii) It has also been argued that the documents recovered from residence of Sh. Lalit Jain do not pertain to the appellant, but pertains to the business of his brother Sh. Prithaviraj Jain who is said to have been working as commission agent.

(iv) The adjudicating authority, in the impugned order, has given detailed findings on all the above grounds. The documents recovered from house of Sh. Lalit Jain clearly indicate the names of various raw material suppliers, quantity of raw materials procured and the period during which the same has been procured. The documents also indicate in detailed the various customers with the details of goods cleared as well as the payments received and pending. Many of the entries found are corroborated by payments made/received in the bank account of the appellant. Obviously, such transactions are accounted. This leads us to the reasonable conclusion that the documents found are a truthful account of the actual transactions made by the appellant in terms of procurement of raw material as well as manufacture and clearance of the finished products. We also note that in the several statements recorded from Sh. Lalit Jain, he has admitted in detail each and every entry found in such documents. The adjudicating authority has also given detailed findings in para No. 20 on how the appellant factory had the capacity to manufacture the quantum of goods alleged to have been cleared clandestinely. We are convinced on the basis of the Adjudicating authority's finding that appellant had the capacity to manufacture the quantity allegedly cleared clandestinely.

10. The adjudicating authority has dealt with the contention that Sh. Lalit Jain was not well versed in English language in para 17 of the impugned order. He has observed that the plea that he is not well versed with English language has been made for the first time after a gap of more than one year after tendering the statement. For the same reason, we conclude that the plea is nothing but an afterthought.

11. It has been contended that the loose sheet and diaries seized from the residence of Shri Lalit Jain do not pertain to the appellant, but pertains to the commission agent business said to have been run by Shri Prithaviraj Jain, brother

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of Shri Lalit Jain. This contention has been dealt with in para 16 of the impugned order. The Revenue has sent repeated summons to Sh. Prithaviraj Jain to seek his clarifications in connection with discrepancies in the statements made by Sh. Lalit Jain and Sh. Prithaviraj Jain. Shri Prithaviraj Jain has chosen to disappear from the scene and absent himself. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority rightly did not place credence on the statements given by Sh. Prithaviraj Jain. 12. After considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, we come to the conclusion that in the light of the evidences placed on record by the Revenue in the form of documents as well as various inculpatory statements, we are of the view that the allegation that the appellant has procured raw materials, manufactured wires and cables and cleared the same clandestinely without payment of duty stands established. Consequently, the demand of duty as well as the penalties imposed in the impugned order is upheld. The order for confiscation of seized goods also stands upheld. 13. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

26-05-2020 Guru Nanak Industries, Faridabad & Another Versus Amar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Supreme Court of India
12-05-2020 Spentex Industries Ltd Versus Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
27-04-2020 Bihar State Electricity Board & Others Versus M/s. Iceberg Industries Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Exide Industries Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 M/s. CJP Industries, Represented by its Managing Partner S. Julius Versus Amitha Bishnoi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 A Marine Industries Munambam, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Proprietor, P.T. Francis & Others Versus UCO Bank, Represented by The Chief Manager, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 S. Vaikundarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMD.2) Department, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 Peps Industries Private Limited Versus Kurlon Limited High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Anushree Malviya Versus Reliance Digital Ltd. & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
12-03-2020 Sai Electromech Industries, A Sole Proprietary Concern rep.by Its Proprietor Umangkumar Joshi Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory S. Mahadevan High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Agrocel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 M/s. Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Ministry of Finance & Others Supreme Court of India
05-03-2020 Electrosteel Steels Limited, Bokaro & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
04-03-2020 M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd., Rajapalaym Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem Versus Parameshwari & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Prime Cable Network & Another High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 Kamal Encon Industries Limited Through its Authorized Representative Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary World Trade Centre, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
25-02-2020 Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Labour-cum-Specified Authority & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus GPT Steel Industries Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
24-02-2020 S. Suresh Versus The Management Exide Industries Ltd., Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-02-2020 Asian Food Industries Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-02-2020 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
18-02-2020 The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Devikamma @ Devakemma & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
18-02-2020 Clay Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Rajasthan & Others Versus Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited (Institution of Rajasthan Government) Through Managing Director, Ugyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus Gail (India) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
07-02-2020 Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited V/S Laxmi Balaji Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
07-02-2020 M/s. S.K.J. Coke Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Coal India Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 HDFC Bank Ltd. V/S JNK Electrical Industries Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
06-02-2020 Andhra Bank V/S Suguna Industries Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
05-02-2020 Sheo Shakti Cement Industries, Hazaribagh Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
05-02-2020 D. Vasantha Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Commerce & Industries Department (MSME & Mines), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 P. Krishnan Versus The Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce (Industrial Co-operatives)/(District Registrar of Industrial Co-op), Guindy, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 B.H. Srinivasa Murthy Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-02-2020 M/s. Reliance Construction Co., Mumbai & Others Versus Priti O. Ganvir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-02-2020 Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Punjab National Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-02-2020 Ishwar Oil Industries and Others. V/S The Authorized Officer, Dena Bank and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad
31-01-2020 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax V/S Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Supreme Court of India
29-01-2020 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by Manager Legal Versus A.V. Radha & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-01-2020 Century Rayon (A Division of Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Maharashtra Versus The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
28-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Authorised Signatory, New Delhi Versus M/s. Durga Bricks Industries, West Bengal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-01-2020 Vanessa Crasto Versus Central Public Information Officer Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd. Central Information Commission
27-01-2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Versus Vilson Particle Board Industries Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-01-2020 M/s. Vijeta Projects & Industries Limited Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
10-01-2020 M/s. Singapore Reality Private Limited, Represented by its Director having office at T. Nagar, Chennai also at Siruseri Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Industries Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-01-2020 Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Versus Kosan Industries (P)Ltd. Supreme Court of India
09-01-2020 Chowgule Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Krishna Shrikant Kumbhar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-01-2020 Union of India Versus Reliance Communication Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
07-01-2020 M/s. Maa Bhadrakali Coke Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Dhanbad Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
03-01-2020 Bengal Hammer Industries P. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
02-01-2020 Himadri Speciality Chemicals and Industries Limited V/S Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
02-01-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Zuari Industries Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
02-01-2020 Allahabad Bank V/S Dobhi Agro Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-12-2019 Jindal Stainless Limited Versus Moorgate Industries India Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
20-12-2019 Manjeet Kapoor Proprietor M/s. Manjeet Plastic Industries, New Delhi Versus Tamil Nadu Textbook and Educational Services Corp. Chennai, Tamil Nadu High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-12-2019 M/s. Yogiraj Powertech Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Industries, Energy & Labour Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-12-2019 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Others Versus Koushalya Ananta Chaudhari & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-12-2019 Lokhandwala Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bala K. Ayer National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-12-2019 Sai Electromech Industries Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, Gujarat, India Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 Google India Private Limited Versus M/s. Visakha Industries & Another Supreme Court of India
10-12-2019 M/s. 3F Industries Limited, Rep. by its Vice President (Co-ordination) & the Authorized Representative, AKS Moorthy Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Nagapattinam High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-12-2019 M/s. Sujana Universal Industries Limited Versus State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-12-2019 M/s. Unicorn Industries Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
06-12-2019 M/s. Unicorn Industries Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
06-12-2019 The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai – V Commissionerate Versus M/s. Reliance Media Works Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Adlabs Films Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-12-2019 M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd & Another Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Others Versus Vilas Laxman Bangar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-12-2019 P.G. Amirthalingam, Represented by his Power Agent V. Krishnasamy Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 G. Jaisankar Srinivasan Versus The Tamil Nadu Small Industries, Development Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
28-11-2019 M/s Deep Industries Limited Versus Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
27-11-2019 R. Murugesan Versus M/s. Pidilite Industries Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Nominee, R. Govindan High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2019 Mettur Minerals, Represented by its Partner, Madhappan Versus The Secretary, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2019 M/s. Refex Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Production Manager, A. Ravi Versus The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd. Versus Niki Tiwari High Court of Chhattisgarh
20-11-2019 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai Versus Dalmia Cements (Bharath) Ltd., Dalmiapuram, Tiruchirapalli & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 Texel Industries, Rep. by its Sole Proprietrix, Chennai Versus M/s. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, Chennai Exporters Branch, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 M/s. Meenakshi Industries, Rep. by its Partner, Salil Bansal, Villupuram Versus The Assistant Commissioner of (CT) Villpuram – II Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-11-2019 The Management, Tamilnadu Khadi and Village, Industries Board, Represented by its Assistant Director, Chennai Versus The Workman, Represented by the Secretary, Industrial Estate General Workers Union, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-11-2019 M/s. Indu Projects Limited, rep. by its Chief Operating Officer, B.V. Bhaskar Reddy Versus Telangana Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, rep. by its Chairman, Commissionerate of Industries, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
07-11-2019 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Chennai Versus M/s. Hivelm Industries, (Unit of Digvision Electronics), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-11-2019 Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Kuralagam, Chennai Versus The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-11-2019 Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Others V/S Gyan Singh Thakur and Others. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Indore Bench
05-11-2019 Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd V/S Union of India Department of Chemicals And Petrochemicals and Others. Supreme Court of India
05-11-2019 The National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Bhaskar Mendon & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-11-2019 M/s. Sunvik Steels Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Vivek Kejriwal Versus The State of Karnataka, Mines, SSI & Textiles, Department of Industries & Commerce, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
29-10-2019 Paragon Steels Private Limited, Industrial Development Area, Palakkad, Represented by Its Director, Muhammed Musthafa & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
28-10-2019 M.A. Abdul Rasheed Versus The General Manager, District Industries Centre Water Works Compound, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
25-10-2019 M/s. Sangeetha Traders Represented by its Partner Santosh Kumar Lath, Alwarpet Versus T.A. Shanmugham, Proprietor, M/s. Sai Packaging Industries, Ambattur, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-10-2019 The Management of M/s. Needle Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Vice President Versus The Labour Court, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-10-2019 Balaji Oil Industries (P) Ltd., Ranipet Versus The Labour Officer-I, Office of the Labour Officer, Vellore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-10-2019 M/s. A.I. Champdany Industries Ltd. Versus M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-10-2019 Muhammed Ismail Makki & Another Versus State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary, Industries (A) Department, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
16-10-2019 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Rai's Tower Versus Prabhavathi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2019 Vedanta Limited, successor-in-interest of the erstwhile Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd, Tuticorin Versus Masyc Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2019 Duncans Industries Ltd. Versus A.J. Agrochem Supreme Court of India
01-10-2019 Uttam Kumar Chatterjee Versus Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-09-2019 K.K. Rajan, Trading as Shar Industries & Another Versus M/s. V. Vidhya Industries, a Registered Partnership Firm, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras


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