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



SPT International & Finance Ltd. v/s Bank of Baroda & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- K N INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP2002PLC026841

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049964

Company & Directors' Information:- S S A INTERNATIONAL LTD [Active] CIN = U15122DL1995PLC068186

Company & Directors' Information:- A T N INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65993WB1983PLC080793

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB1995PTC016929

Company & Directors' Information:- T K INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101OR1982PLC001092

Company & Directors' Information:- N R INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74999WB1991PLC051738

Company & Directors' Information:- K J INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L15142PB1993PLC011274

Company & Directors' Information:- A K S INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1996PLC076327

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100WB1994PTC063228

Company & Directors' Information:- B. K. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2006PTC157013

Company & Directors' Information:- R S C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17124RJ1993PLC007136

Company & Directors' Information:- J C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1999PLC089037

Company & Directors' Information:- M T L INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U24219UP2001PTC025965

Company & Directors' Information:- T C N S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U51311DL1996PTC080096

Company & Directors' Information:- K V S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC120770

Company & Directors' Information:- G N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2001PTC110766

Company & Directors' Information:- S H A M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1994PTC079867

Company & Directors' Information:- M K INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1996PLC083430

Company & Directors' Information:- SPT INTERNATIONAL AND FINANCE LTD [Active] CIN = U15499WB1990PLC050401

Company & Directors' Information:- V. G. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101DL2007PTC162540

Company & Directors' Information:- D R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24132DL1996PTC079867

Company & Directors' Information:- R H INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2007PLC159452

Company & Directors' Information:- G & G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2012PTC234047

Company & Directors' Information:- A & D INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36109RJ2007PTC024176

Company & Directors' Information:- K A I INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U13100OR2007PTC009647

Company & Directors' Information:- C G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1996PTC097577

Company & Directors' Information:- K C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PLC060402

Company & Directors' Information:- M P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29130MH1997PTC107943

Company & Directors' Information:- A S INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1993PLC056158

Company & Directors' Information:- S. D. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900UP2008PTC036047

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND I INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1995PTC072210

Company & Directors' Information:- L T INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1999PLC097892

Company & Directors' Information:- A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102GJ2008PTC053840

Company & Directors' Information:- S J M INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52110DL1987PLC028571

Company & Directors' Information:- S B S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1997PTC085878

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51225DL2008PTC177405

Company & Directors' Information:- B G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300PB2014PTC038889

Company & Directors' Information:- S F INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PB2000PTC023654

Company & Directors' Information:- I K INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066267

Company & Directors' Information:- C K INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC045625

Company & Directors' Information:- L A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2010PTC033683

Company & Directors' Information:- H R V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899UP1993PTC057665

Company & Directors' Information:- K P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24110GJ2007PTC050026

Company & Directors' Information:- V S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100MH1997PTC109647

Company & Directors' Information:- N N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01111DL1999PTC099094

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC243060

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH2010PTC228539

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC055562

Company & Directors' Information:- M J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013231

Company & Directors' Information:- D N INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36911TN1996PLC034205

Company & Directors' Information:- M. H. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102DL2007PTC164267

Company & Directors' Information:- M G M INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013580

Company & Directors' Information:- J J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL1992PTC047657

Company & Directors' Information:- H D INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PLC060720

Company & Directors' Information:- K. A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101UP2012PTC049338

Company & Directors' Information:- J & G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2012PTC238392

Company & Directors' Information:- K R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2008PTC172188

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999UP1965PTC003091

Company & Directors' Information:- B M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC048736

Company & Directors' Information:- S G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1998PTC086547

Company & Directors' Information:- B N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15412WB1999PTC089316

Company & Directors' Information:- V A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01111DL2000PTC104712

Company & Directors' Information:- S. J. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310DL2007PTC169438

Company & Directors' Information:- G. S. C. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120MH1994PTC080380

Company & Directors' Information:- A J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060818

Company & Directors' Information:- J S M INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KA1996PLC020046

Company & Directors' Information:- N M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120MH2012PTC234492

Company & Directors' Information:- S S M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1997PTC089876

Company & Directors' Information:- A P J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909HR2010PTC040304

Company & Directors' Information:- T. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL1997PTC091049

Company & Directors' Information:- V R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101UP2011PTC043952

Company & Directors' Information:- A & F INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00265KA1995PTC018998

Company & Directors' Information:- M E C INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33111GJ1963PTC082423

Company & Directors' Information:- J K INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01100MH2004PTC144492

Company & Directors' Information:- D. S. R. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2010PTC039954

Company & Directors' Information:- R B INTERNATIONAL LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101WB1993PLC059515

Company & Directors' Information:- P Y INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51102RJ1995PTC010133

Company & Directors' Information:- R C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TG1991PLC012477

Company & Directors' Information:- I AND A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG1995PTC019936

Company & Directors' Information:- P V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1998PTC094598

Company & Directors' Information:- I B INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U72200DL2000PTC105735

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066228

Company & Directors' Information:- Z. H. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21098MH2010PTC210735

Company & Directors' Information:- J R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909TN2002PTC048744

Company & Directors' Information:- L S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2009PTC193390

Company & Directors' Information:- M B INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52190DL2001PTC110572

Company & Directors' Information:- O K R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1996PTC077152

Company & Directors' Information:- B B C INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25209WB1984PTC037383

Company & Directors' Information:- K S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MH2001PTC134345

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51101TN1992PTC022507

Company & Directors' Information:- C & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1982PTC026718

Company & Directors' Information:- J S INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1982PTC027604

Company & Directors' Information:- A C INDIA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC034784

Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPN LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65910WB1949PLC017802

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA INTERNATIONAL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51228MH1955PTC009483

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63040PB1982PTC004926

Company & Directors' Information:- L & P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52100DL2016PTC292025

Company & Directors' Information:- R B N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52300DL2012PTC243998

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U24100OR1993PTC003244

Company & Directors' Information:- E C INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1982PTC013146

Company & Directors' Information:- M M INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51312DL1977PTC008583

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDIA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1981PTC012389

Company & Directors' Information:- O P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U55101PB2013PTC037499

Company & Directors' Information:- J & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900PB2013PTC037302

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900RJ2012PTC040431

Company & Directors' Information:- D & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC262713

Company & Directors' Information:- R L INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204UP2016PTC076344

Company & Directors' Information:- V P S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93030UP2014PTC066242

Company & Directors' Information:- J V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51102DL2012PTC240197

Company & Directors' Information:- S R L INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U20296AP2013PTC085533

Company & Directors' Information:- M D INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH1981PTC025007

Company & Directors' Information:- THE BANK OF BARODA LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1911PLC007676

Company & Directors' Information:- D C M INTERNATIONAL LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC004208

    W.P. No. 16207 (W) of 2018

    Decided On, 07 November 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR

    For the Petitioner: Debasish Karmakar, Bikramaditya Ghosh, Rahul Kumar Jha, Advocates. For the Respondents: Priyankar Saha, P.K. Tiwari, Dyutimoy Paul, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. The facts leading to the writ petition are that, a sale notice dated February 9, 2013, was published in the Ananda Bazar Patrika and Times of India in exercise of powers under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (herein after referred to as the said Act) by the Bank of Baroda, the respondent No.1 herein and the petitioner company desired to purchase the property comprising of all that piece and parcel of land measuring an area of 3.75 Cottahs (more or less) along with a single storied incomplete building having a total built up area of 558 sq.ft. standing thereon in Holding No.27 Nazrul Sarani (UB), Mouza - Badra, JL No.- 9, Dag No.295, 285, Khatian No.342/333, Touzi No. - 1163, P.S. - Dumdum, Ward No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the said property). The date of sale was March 12, 2013. The reserve price was Rs.18,32,000/-.

The petitioner submitted its bid on March 11, 2013, along with an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as earnest money. The petitioner was declared as the highest bidder having quoted a sum of Rs.21,22,000/. The petitioner was informed by a letter dated March 14, 2013, that the sale would be confirmed subject to the final order/outcome of SA.No.271 of 2013, pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II. The petitioner was advised to deposit 25 % of the sale amount, less the earnest money that is Rs.5,33,500 - 5,00,000 = Rs, 30,000/- immediately, and the balance amount of Rs. 5,99,000/- was required to be paid, as per the said notice within 15 days from the date of receiving the confirmation letter which would be issued, according to the Respondent No.1, subject to the final order of SA No.271 of 2013. Before the above notice was issued by the respondent No.1, the petitioner deposited a demand draft dated March 13, 2013 with the bank for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited another demand draft on April 4, 2013 for an amount of Rs.15,92,500/- as full and final payment for the property. Even after deposit of the demand draft, the bank did not confirm the sale by issuing a sale certificate in favour of the petitioner.

2. Facts reveal that the property was owned by one Diptesh Chand and Sandhya Chand who were the borrowers. The said borrowers preferred an application under Section 17 of the said Act, and the said application was moved before the Learned Debt Recovery Tribunal-II Kolkata on March 12, 2013. The Learned tribunal was pleased to direct the respondent No.1, not to confirm the sale till the next hearing before the Tribunal. The bid for the said property took place at the Salt lake Branch of the respondent No.1, bank at 1.00 p.m. on March 12, 2013, that is, on the date when the matter was moved before the Tribunal. At the time of publication of the sale notice there was no litigation pending in respect of the said property. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the bank in confirming the sale, even after payment of the purchase amount by way of bank drafts, the petitioner wrote a letter to the authorized officer of the bank dated May 15, 2013, requesting the authority to handover physical possession, site plan, Khazna papers, original conveyance deed and sale certificate to its director, Mr. Amit Choudhury. By a letter dated January 17, 2018, the bank requested the petitioner to prepare itself for the sale of the said property, as the borrowers were not willing to pursue the matter before the Tribunal any further. Thereafter, again by a notice dated January 30, 2018, the petitioner requested the said bank to complete the sale proceeding and handover final possession of the said property. The petitioner deposited the requisite documents on February 9, 2018. By a letter dated March 12, 2018, the Chief Manager of the said bank returned all the banker's cheques (demand drafts) which had been deposited by the petitioner and all of which had become invalid by lapse of time, namely, i. No. 030053, Dt:25.06.2013, Amt:Rs.30,000/-, IndusInd Bank ii. No. 030017, Dt:25.06.2013, Amt:Rs.5,00,000/-, IndusInd Bank iii. No.030487, Dt:25.06.2013, Amt:Rs.15,91,000/-, IndusInd Bank iv. No.430293, Dt:21.06.2013, Amt:Rs.500/-, IndusInd Bank

3. The bank returned the banker's cheques on the ground that the sale of the property having been stayed by the Tribunal, the bank could not proceed with the same. The petitioner by a demand of justice issued by its learned advocate dated June 15, 2018, demanded payment of a sum of Rs.18,92,464/- being the total interest calculated at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal amount in respect of which the drafts has been deposited and were lying with the bank from March 11, 2013 to March 12, 2018. The bank did not pay any heed to the said demand. The amount of simple interest as calculated by the petitioner was as hereunder:-

Interest Calculation

SPT INTERNATIONAL & FINANCE LIMITED

“TABLE

4. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1, Bank to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.18,92,464/-, being the accrued simple interest calculated at 18% per annum on the principal amount deposited with the bank through demand drafts and lying with the Bank from March 11, 2013 to March 12, 2018 along with further interest at the rate of 18% per annum on and from March 13, 2018 till the date of actual payment.

5. The unreasonable and arbitrary action of the bank in returning the invalid drafts/banker's cheques without issuing the letter of confirmation of the sale and further inaction of the bank in paying the interest as claimed by the petitioner, has compelled the petitioner to file this writ petition.

6. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner, that at the time of auction and issuance of the sale notice on February 9, 2013, the encumbrance about the litigation had not been mentioned by the bank. The entire purchase amount of Rs.21,22,000/- by way of demand drafts/banker's cheques had been received by the bank. The bank had enjoyed such amount. The bank kept quiet for five (5) years after receiving the money and then returned the invalid drafts/banker's cheques. Thus, the respondent No.1, bank was liable to pay the interest accrued thereon as per the calculation made by the petitioner. The petitioner had been requesting the said bank time and again to deliver vacant possession of the said property with the hope that the sale would be completed. Suddenly, by a letter dated March 12, 2018, the invalid banker's cheques/demand drafts were returned to the petitioner without any interest. The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that the bank was liable to pay interest having held the money for those five (5) years without delivering the property to the petitioner. In support of his contention the learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the following decisions, namely, Motors and Investments vs. New Bank of India reported in 1997 (11) SCC 271, World Tel Inc. and Another vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2001) 10 SCC 513, Mathew Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar and Others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 610, V. Sambandan vs. The Punjab National Bank in Writ Appeal No.530 of 2010, S. Sanmuganathan vs. The Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank in W.P.No.39199 of 2016, State Bank of India & Ors. vs. K. D. Fabrics Private Limited & Anr. in arising out of W. P.660 of 2017.

7. It was urged on behalf of the respondent No. 1, bank that the sale notice stipulated that the sale was on as is, where is, whatever is, basis and that the sale of the asset would be subject to confirmation of sale by the secured creditor. The borrowers filed an application under Section 17 of the said Act, which was moved before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II Kolkata on March 12, 2013. By an order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent No.1, bank was directed not to confirm the sale. The bank informed the petitioner about the order of the Tribunal and the proceeding with respect to the said property on March 14, 2013. Although, the petitioner was called upon to pay the balance amount of 25% of the purchase money, the petitioner was instructed that the balance amount of the consideration of Rs.15,91,000/- was to be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter of confirmation of the sale, which would be issued by the bank subject to the final decision of the Tribunal in the proceeding before it. The respondent No.1 had not demanded the balance 75% of the amount and also did not encash the banker's cheques issued by the petitioner amounting to 25% of the purchase money, that is, Rs.5,30,500/-. These facts were well within the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner had also written a letter asking the bank about the pending litigation on July 7, 2014 and by a letter of even date, the Chief Manager of the said bank informed the petitioner about the details of the litigation. The petitioner on its own volition submitted the demand drafts of Rs.15,91,500/- on April 4, 2013 at the receiving section of the bank which was received without prejudice. The petitioner having knowledge of the pending litigation and details thereof, failed to take any steps before the Tribunal and instead called upon the bank to confirm the sale. The letter of the petitioner was duly replied to by the Bank on March 12, 2018 and the invalid banker's cheques/demand drafts which were deposited by the petitioner were returned by the bank. The bank also expressed its inability to proceed with the sale due to the order of the Tribunal. According to the respondent No.1 bank, as the banker's cheques had not been encashed due to the restraint order issued by the Tribunal, the same had become invalid after three (3) months from their issuance and the respondent No.1 bank was not liable to pay any amount of interest as claimed by the petitioner. It was contended that as the bank had not enjoyed the money, the question of payment of interest did not arise.

8. Heard the parties. As per the sale notice, the petitioner submitted its bid on March 11, 2013. Admittedly on the date of the publication of the sale notice, that is, February 9, 2013, there was no litigation pending in respect of the said property. The Debt Recovery Tribunal was moved by the borrower on March 12, 2013, that is, on the date of auction. The tribunal passed an order on the same date, restraining the bank from confirming the sale. Such restraint order was extended by the Tribunal and the bank was unable to proceed with the sale or handover vacant possession of the property to the petitioner. The petitioner was accepted as the highest bidder by the bank. By a notice dated March 14, 2013, the petitioner was asked to pay 25% of the sale amount, less the earnest money already deposited by the petitioner and was also informed that the remaining 75% of the amount would become payable within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the sale certificate, which would be issued subject to the final outcome of SA No.271 of 2013 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II. The bank did not call upon the petitioner to pay the remaining of 75% of the sale price. The petitioner on its own accord deposited the banker's cheques for the remaining 75% on April 4, 2013. The bank did not encash them.

9. The bank by a letter dated March 12, 2018, returned the invalid banker's cheques/demand drafts to the petitioner and expressed its inability to proceed with the sale. Admittedly, the demand drafts/banker's cheques were valid only for three (3) months. The bank in not having encashed the drafts/banker's cheques, did not enjoy the money of the petitioner nor did the bank utilize the said money. The drafts/banker's cheques also became invalid after three (3) months and the bank did not ask for revalidation of the same. When the bank had not utilized the money by encashing the demand drafts/the banker's cheques, the question of payment of interest, in my opinion, without there being any claim for refund of the principal amount does not arise. Moreover, the bank had clearly indicated to the petitioner on March 14, 2013 that the remaining 75% of the amount would be payable after the confirmation of the sale and that the confirmation letter would be issued only after the proceedings before the Tribunal had come to an end. The petitioner was well aware of the position but voluntarily deposited the drafts/banker's cheques. Thus, taking a chance at its own risk. The petitioner also did not take any steps before the Tribunal in the pending litigation. As there was no confirmation of sale, the petitioner was not required to deposit the banker's cheques/demand drafts in terms of Rule 9 (5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement Rules) 2002. The rules provide that, only upon confirmation of sale, if the balance purchase price was not paid within fifteen (15) days of such confirmation, the deposit of 25% made by the petitioner would have been forfeited. In the instant case, there was no confirmation of sale, the petitioner was informed by the bank within two (2) days from the date of auction that the letter of confirmation would be issued only after the final decision of the tribunal and the petitioner would be required to make the remaining payment of 75% of the purchase amount within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the letter confirming sale. Moreover, due to the pending litigation, the bank did not encash the demand drafts/banker's cheques and those became invalid after three (3) months from their respective dates of issuance. Once, the principal amount was not encashed by the bank and used by the bank, the question of payment of interest does not arise. The bank was not under any statutory or contractual obligation to pay the interest. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the failure of the bank to perform its obligation arising out of the sale notice after accepting the bid of the petitioner along with the earnest money as also for withholding the invalid demand drafts, the remedy of the petitioner would be in a civil suit. The petitioner could have also asked IndusInd bank to cancel the demand drafts and remit the money to his account.

10. In the decision of K. D. Fabrics Private Limited & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that once the bank was directed by the Tribunal, while disposing of an application under Section 17 of the said Act, to refund the amount received by the bank from the auction purchaser along with interest, the bank should have complied with the order of the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Division Bench held, that when the bank failed to discharge its obligation as per terms of the auction sale, the bank on its own should have offered to refund the amount to the auction purchaser who was not only deprived of the enjoyment of the property but was prevented from utilizing the money which was deposited with the bank, for purchasing other property. The facts of the case are completely different from the instant case. In this case, the bank had neither encashed the demand drafts/banker's cheques nor utilized the money of the petitioner. The bank did not demand 75% of the bid money and had intimated the petitioner about the pending litigation when the 25% of the bid money was demanded from the petitioner as the successful bidder. At that juncture the petitioner had the choice to cancel the demand drafts and not pay the balance 75%.

11. In the decision of Motors and Investors (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, when the appellant before the Apex Court had deposited the money with the bank pursuant to an auction, and upon the said auction having been set aside by a court, the auction purchaser should be compensated by the bank by way of refund of the principal amount together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount deposited. In this case also the facts were distinguishable.

12. In the decision of Mathew Verghese (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed that the appellant before it, being the auction purchaser, be refunded 25% of the purchase amount deposited with the bank along with interest at the rate of 18% when the auction sale had been set aside.

13. In the decision of the High Court of Madras in V. Sambandan (supra), the refund of the principal amount with interest at the rate of 9% was directed in view of the fact that the sale notice did not mention the encumbrance although, the bank was aware of the same and as such forfeiture of the amount which has been deposited by the auction purchaser at the time of auction was set aside. The Division Bench of the High Court at Madras held as follows:

" 60. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bank may be right in contending that physical possession need not be taken before bringing the mortgaged property for auction, but they cannot shirk their duty to hand over possession to the auction purchaser. If the bank was not in a position to take physical possession, before sale, then recourse ought to have been taken under Section 14 of the Act and under the scheme of the Act, the Bank cannot be permitted to contend that there is no statutory obligation, on its part, to put the auction purchaser in possession.

61. Ordinarily, a sale is completed, on receipt of the entire sale consideration and handing over possession. But if encumbrance is specifically mentioned in the sale notice and if the auction purchaser with eyes open, had purchased the property, then there could be a cause to contend that it is the purchaser, who had taken the risk. While issuing a sale notice, it is the duty of the Bank to mention all the encumbrances in the property. The condition, "as is where is" or "as is what is" may indicate that when the property is sold, everything is not clear. But at the same time, the purchaser cannot be expected to know that the property sold was already mortgaged to another bank, viz., Nedungadi Bank and that there was a decree in O.S.No.328 of 1999, dated 10.07.2000, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.

62. Though the appellant has taken a demand draft dated 02.09.2009 in favour of Punjab National Bank, the respondent herein and also sent a telegram that he was ready to hand over the draft, subject to the bank handing over vacant possession of the property and time for remittance was granted up to 22.02.2009, bank has stuck to its stand of 'as is where is' or 'as is what is' condition and not committed to hand over physical and vacant possession of the auctioned property, which in our view is contrary to the scheme of the Act. In the light of the above discussion and decisions, forfeiture of the amount is erroneous. Appellant has made out a case for interference.

63. In the result, order made in W.P.No.19557 of 2009, dated 28.10.2009, is set aside. The respondent bank is directed to refund, a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- to the appellant, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

14. In the decision of S. Shanmuganathan (supra) a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held as follows:-

"31. The representation that the property is free from encumbrance and that he would get vacant possession soon made the petitioner to take part in the auction and to submit his bid. Even according to the Bank, details of litigations were not disclosed in the auction notification in spite of clear knowledge. The petitioner with a fond hope that he would be in a position to enjoy the property made his offer which was accepted by the bank. The petitioner deposited the amount way back on 24.07.2008. The bank was expected to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the property within a reasonable time. Even after a period of nine years, the bank is not in a position to deliver vacant possession. The secured asset is now in the midst of civil litigations. There is also a criminal case in respect of the mortgage relating to the secured asset. The petitioner waited all these years. It was only when he was convinced that the chances of culmination of litigation is very remote, the petitioner made a request to the bank to refund the amount. The bank instead of admitting its mistake in not disclosing the encumbrances, and litigations, dragged the petitioner from pillar to post and finally prompted him to approach this court. In view of the background facts, the bank is liable to refund the sale consideration to the petitioner.

Interest :-

32. The other question is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to interest.

33. The petitioner deposited the sale consideration on 24.07.2008. The bank retained the money all these years without delivering the property to the petitioner. The bank is therefore liable to pay interest to the petitioner.

34. In Ambalavanan vs. Canara Bank (order dated 01.04.2016 in Review Application (Writ) No.302 of 2015) a Division Bench of this court considered the question regarding payment of interest. The Division Bench made the following observation, while directing payment of interest to the purchaser of a secured asset:-

9. The Bank issued the sale notice to auction the property mortgaged by the first respondent. The applicant participated in the auction. The bid submitted by the applicant was accepted by the Bank and the sale was confirmed in his name. The applicant paid a sum of Rs.65,07,000/- to the Bank. The amount was deposited on 27 August 2010. The sale was subsequently set aside by this Court. The Bank refunded the amount deposited by the applicant. However, interest was not paid. The Bank cannot be heard to say that the purchaser of the property is not entitled to interest. The money was deposited with the Bank. The Bank was having the money throughout the proceedings. The Bank utilized the money. The Bank charges different rates for different transactions. The Bank is charging 14% for mortgage loans. There are other transactions wherein the Bank charges even 18% interest per annum. Such being the factual position, the Bank cannot be heard to say that the applicant has to be satisfied only with the principal amount. We are of the view that the Bank having kept the amount for years together, is bound to pay interest to the applicant.

35. The petitioner is entitled to interest which we fix at 12% per annum.

36. We direct the bank to refund the sale consideration viz. Rs.62,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lakhs only) to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum, calculated from 24.7.2008 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. The bank is given liberty to cancel the sale certificate."

15. The facts in all the cases relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner are distinct and distinguishable. In this case, the petitioner was informed about the encumbrance within two (2) days from the auction and the balance 75% of the purchase amount was never demanded by the bank. The demand drafts/banker's cheques containing 25% of the purchase money (including earnest money) as also the balance 75% were never encashed by the bank. There is also no claim for refund of the principal amount.

16. Clearly, all these cases mentioned herein above stand on a different footing. The bank had neither failed to notify the pre-existing encumbrance in the sale notice nor had the bank enjoyed the principal amount deposited by the petitioner. None of the de

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

mand drafts/banker's cheques had been enchased by the bank. Only in such cases when the principal amount had been deposited and the bank had utilized the money, the courts have directed refund of the principal amount along with interest in the event of the bank's failure to handover vacant possession upon registering the sale certificate. In the case, before this court, the borrowers moved the Tribunal on the date of auction. There was no encumbrance on the date of the issuance of the sale notice. The order restraining the bank from proceeding with the sale was passed by the Tribunal on the date of the auction. The auction was held at 1 p.m. on March 12, 2013 and the order of the Tribunal was passed on the same date. On March 14, 2013, itself the bank informed the petitioner that the 25% of the bid money should be paid by demand draft but the balance amount of 75% would become payable within fifteen (15) days from confirmation of the sale and the sale would be confirmed only upon the final decision of the Tribunal. Thereafter, the bank did not demand the payment of the balance amount. The petitioner had the choice to withdraw from the transaction. The petitioner on its own volition deposited the balance amount. They became invalid after three (3) months. The petitioner had the option to apply to the issuing bank (Induslnd) for cancellation of the demand drafts between March 11, 2013 to March 12, 2018 on account of the failure of the bank to confirm the sale and handover the possession of the said property. The money did not pass on to the bank. However, if the petitioner was aggrieved by any breach of any obligation or promise on the part of the bank on account of the bank's failure to complete the sale of the property auctioned or for any monetary loss suffered on account of the bank having withheld the invalid drafts, the remedy of the petitioner was available in a civil suit. Under such circumstances, a direction for payment of interest without there being any claim for refund of the principal amount cannot be issued in the instant proceedings. The claim is misconceived and not tenable in law. Moreover, the petitioner waited in silence for a period of five (5) years and did not take any steps. The petitioner could have withdrawn from the transaction having been made aware of the pending litigation within two (2) days from the date of the auction. 17. Under such circumstances the writ petition is dismissed. 18. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat Certified Copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

22-09-2020 Elite International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2020 Jigeshwar Prasad Deshmukh & Another Versus Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda, Durg (CG) & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
27-08-2020 M/s. Web International Cargo Ltd., Rep. by its proprietor Srinivas P. Bhat Versus M/s. Magnum Logistics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Jayaram High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. & Another Versus Unwired Planet International Ltd. & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
24-08-2020 The Director of Income-Tax International Taxation, Bangalore & Another Versus The Executive Engineer, M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
20-08-2020 M/s. Life Cell International Private Limited, Represented by its Company Secretary D. Mahesh, Chennai Versus Vinay Katrela High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2020 Bank of Baroda, Through Its Manager, Maharashtra Versus Balaprasad Bansilal Biyani National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
17-07-2020 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Delhi International Airport Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-07-2020 Paras International Exports Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
29-06-2020 Coromandel International Ltd. (Earlier Known As Coromandel Fertillisers Ltd.) Through its Authorized Representative, Vishakhapatnam & Others Versus Kamrubai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 IRCON International Ltd. Versus M/s. Meumal Athwani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-06-2020 M/s. Angelique International Limited Versus Public Electricity Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
22-06-2020 Bank of Baroda Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Aberdeen Asia Pacific Including Japan Equity Fund Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1(1)(1) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
10-06-2020 Hotel Nikhil Sai International Bar & Restaurant Versus Assistant Commissioner ST Audit & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-06-2020 Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Sri Vinayaka Caterors & Consultants, Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partners, K. Eshwar Versus The Executive Warden, International Hostels, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-05-2020 Bhansali Productions Pvt.Ltd. Versus Eros International Medial Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2020 M/s. Inter Ads Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. Versus Busworld International Cooperatieve Vennootschap Met Beperkte Anasprakelijkheid High Court of Delhi
01-05-2020 Bank of Baroda Erstwhile Dena Bank Versus Suresh Chand Seth & Others High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. Versus Axiom Cordages Limited (Previously Known as Axion Impex International Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-04-2020 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, Having Registered Office at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory Nixon Varghese Versus Kannur International Airport Limited, Mattannur, Represented by Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 Bank of Baroda V/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Supreme Court of India
13-03-2020 Dr. Rajesh Jhorawat Versus Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd. V/S Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & 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
11-03-2020 M/s. Meyer Apparel Ltd. Versus M/s. Panchanan International Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-03-2020 Cambridge International School & Another Versus Priyanka Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
28-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd. & Another Versus Banothu Rangamma & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
27-02-2020 Perfect Synergy Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sagar Infra Rail International Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 M/s. Annapurna Dealer Pvt. Ltd. Versus Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-02-2020 Saurabh Kar & Another Versus Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
17-02-2020 R. Siva Versus The Deputy General Manager, (CMR Region) Bank of Baroda, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 APS Forex Services Private Limited Versus Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 Seed Works International Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Finance Controller, TN Rajan & Another Versus Banothu Tharya & Another Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
13-02-2020 Rajamani Versus Bank of Baroda, Rep. by its Chief Manager & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-02-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus C.R. Sons Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
10-02-2020 Bank of Baroda & Another Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-02-2020 Swastik Builders, Satyam Apartments Next to Rowell Continental (Sunny International) & Others Versus Dr. Shobha & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-02-2020 Bank of Baroda V/S Ankit Singh and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
06-02-2020 Bank of Baroda V/S Golden Tulip Minerals and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
05-02-2020 M/s. Texcel International Pvt. Ltd., Sengundram Industrial Area (Near Ford India Ltd.,), Chengalpattu Versus M/s. Chennai Steel Tubes, Rep.by one of its Partner, G. Bhavanishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Bank of Baroda V/S Pragneshbhai Keshubhai Kakadiya and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad
05-02-2020 Bank of Baroda/Dena Bank V/S Dishank Srivasatava and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
03-02-2020 Bank of Baroda V/S M.S. Enterprises and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Aurangabad
31-01-2020 Alstom T&D India Ltd., Formerly known as Areva T&D India Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Rep. by its authorized signatory, Padappai Versus M/s. Texcel International Pvt., Ltd., Represented by Mukunthan C.O.O, Chengalpattu High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Others Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
30-01-2020 Bank of Baroda, Shadnagar Branch V/S Venkateswara Hot Mix Industry and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
27-01-2020 Hotel Soorya International, Represented by its Partner, S. Arumugam Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 M/s. IRCON International Limited, (A Government of India Undertaking), Rep. by its Joint General Manager(South), Bangalore Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintending Engineer(H), Villupuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-01-2020 Export Import Bank of India & Another Versus Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-01-2020 International Car and Motors Ltd. Versus Shyam Sundar Sen & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-01-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
13-01-2020 Union of India rep. By its Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai Versus M/s. Raiments & Garments International, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Bank of Baroda & Others Versus Jatinder Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-01-2020 Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda & Others Versus Mahabir Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 M/s. Prime Gold International Limited, Represented by its Director Achin Aggarwal & Another Versus The Additional Director General, The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Coimbatore Zonal Unit, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 Phoenix International Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
04-01-2020 HDFC Bank Limited V/S KPG International Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
03-01-2020 Bank of Baroda V/S Sanjay Kumar Ray Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna
03-01-2020 Bank of Baroda and Others. V/S Sanjay Bhatia and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
03-01-2020 Bank of Baroda V/S Sri Krishna Minerals and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Cuttack
20-12-2019 Milap Devi Jain & Others Versus Bank of Baroda & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad
20-12-2019 Bank of Baroda Versus Dr. Kamal Gupta & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-12-2019 J. John Winfred Versus International Airport Authority of India Rep. By Airport Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-12-2019 HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Bank of Baroda & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad
16-12-2019 Komati Srinivasa Rao Versus Bank of Baroda, Rep. by the Authorized Officer, Main Branch, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-12-2019 Varun Sachdeva Versus Bank of Baroda & Another Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi
12-12-2019 Moets Catering Services Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Bindra Versus Dr. Ambedkar International Center & Others High Court of Delhi
12-12-2019 M/s. Saravana International, Rep. by its Proprietor C.R. Devanathan, Panruti Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panruti High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 Tuli International Through it is Partner, Neeraj Tuli Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Sh. A.K. Longai, Manager, Duly Contituted Attorney & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-12-2019 M/s. N.V. International Versus State of Assam & Others Supreme Court of India
04-12-2019 Bank of Baroda Versus Manorama Shandilya & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad
14-11-2019 Bank of Baroda, Dharampeth, Branch Versus Paramount Conductors Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
13-11-2019 Shaji B. John, Kings International Ltd., Quilon & Others Versus The Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Cochin, Represented by Its Secretary, Dr. G. Santhanakrishnan High Court of Kerala
30-10-2019 M/s. Usha International Ltd., Represented by its Chief Operating Officer, Haryana Versus Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-10-2019 M/s. EOS GmbH-India Branch, Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Prakasam Anand (Country Manager), Kolathur Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-10-2019 K.P.L. International Limited, Represented by it Senior Vice President, R.P. Mundra Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Saidapet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-10-2019 Head Legal, Gmr Hyd International Airport Ltd. Versus Registrar, Airports Economic Regulatory Appellate Tribunal 2 High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-10-2019 M/s. PJS Knit Garments, Rep.by its Partner, P. Sugansaran & Another Versus The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Tirupur Main Branch, Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2019 M.L. Kumawat & Another Versus Bharat Bio Tech International Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-09-2019 Chennai Port Trust Versus Chennai International Terminals Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 Ajit Ravi Versus Cochin International Airport Ltd. High Court of Kerala
20-09-2019 International Society for Krishna Consciousness Versus Ishwari Prasad Singh Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-09-2019 Dharam Vir & Others Versus BGS International Public School & Others High Court of Delhi
18-09-2019 The Management of M/s. International Travel House Limited, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-2019 Bank of Baroda Through its Assistant General Manager Prem Narayan Sharma Versus State of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
29-08-2019 M/s. Kadimi International Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited High Court of Delhi
29-08-2019 M/s G.A. Industries Versus Bank of Baroda, Authorised Officer High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
27-08-2019 Yun Zhang & Others Versus Sealegs International Limited Court of Appeal of New Zealand
27-08-2019 Central Board of Secondary Education, Application Branch, Shiksha Kendra, Delhi, Represented by its Secretary Versus Manager, Bethlehem International, Vazhakulam, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
19-08-2019 AAP Infrastructures Ltd. Versus Bank of Baroda & Another High Court of Delhi
19-08-2019 International Flavours & Fragrances India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Office of the Advocate General, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala