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



Sardana Enterprises and Others V/S CC, New Delhi


Company & Directors' Information:- TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2006PTC235208

Company & Directors' Information:- S A ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01135UP1993PTC015379

Company & Directors' Information:- C & C ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31909TG1992PTC014513

Company & Directors' Information:- D E ENTERPRISES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1980PTC010963

Company & Directors' Information:- C N ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202MH1997PTC109277

Company & Directors' Information:- DELHI ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1968PTC004918

    Customs Appeals Nos. 60465, 59442/2013 (DB) (Arising out of common Order-in-Original No. RT/ACE/21/2013 dated 28.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Customs House, New Delhi) and Final Orders Nos. 50107 to 50108/2017

    Decided On, 12 January 2018

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: S.K. MOHANTY
    By, MEMBER AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: B. RAVICHANDRAN
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: Bharat Bhushan Sharma and Renuka Singh, Advocates And For Respondents: R.K. Manjhi, DR



Judgment Text


1. These two appeals are against common impugned order dated 28.03.2013 of Commissioner of Customs (Export), Airport, New Delhi. The impugned order dealt with role of various noticees with reference to import of Micro SD Chips. However, we have only two appeals before us and accordingly, the findings are restricted to these two appeals only. The first appellant, M/s. Sardana Enterprises, is a proprietary firm owned by Shri Gopal Sardana and they are one of the importers of the impugned goods in the present case. The second appellant, M/s. Express Industry Council of India is a cargo handling agent authorized as custodian of imported cargo in the designated area of Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi. They have been licensed by the Commissioner of Customs in terms of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009.

2. The brief facts of the case are that based on the certain information, the officers of SIIB of New Customs House, Delhi intercepted a courier shipment at the carrier terminal and examined the said consignment, which arrived from Hong Kong on 23.04.2012. On examination of the said courier consignment, it was noticed that no proper documents accompanied the said consignment. The receiver's name was mentioned as "Raja Traders", "Mr. Tarun (Tel. No. 9810087272)" and "Xtra image". No address or other details regarding contents of the cargo were available. The goods were examined and the consignment was found to contain 90000 pieces of Micro SD Card, both branded and un-branded with capacities of 2GB/4GB. 500 pieces of connectors and one set of printed cylinder with cover were also found. Detailed follow up investigation was conducted on the ground that there was an attempt to illegally import these electronic items with mis-declaration of contents as well as value in order to evade proper customs duty. Statements of various persons connected to the shipment were recorded and connected documents were collected by the officers. On completion of the investigation, the following facts/inferences were arrived at by the Revenue:-

"(i) Goods concerned are covered under AWB No. 160-2580-4315 dated 22.04.2012 sent by M/s. Taj Express Courier in the name of M/s. Cruze Couriers Pvt. Ltd. vide courier tag No. CX676126 through Cathay Pacific Flight No. CX 695.

(ii) Scrutiny of the documents available with the consignment reveal that they do not reflect complete address of receiver and also do not declare the description of the goods. Moreover, there was no invoice accompanying the goods. As per HAWB goods are consigned to Mr. Tarun, M/s. Raja Traders and M/s. Xtra Image, the same were placed under seizure vide Seizure Panchnama dated 23.04.2012 upon reason to believe that the same are liable for confiscation.

(iii) On 25.4.2012, Shri Balwinder Singh, Director of M/s. Cruze Couriers Pvt. Ltd. received a mail from M/s. Taj Express Courier containing Export Manifest and invoices, which shows that the goods were sent by M/s. Panash Goup and M/s. Shenzhen Imaging Co. These documents were submitted at the time of recording of his statement.

(iv) As per Export Manifest, consignees are M/s. Sardana Enterprises, M/s. JMS Infotech, Mr. Tarun and Mr. Vikash Kumar.

(v) Copy of HAWBs submitted along with Export Manifest shows the name of the consignee changed from M/s. Raja Traders to M/s. Sardana Enterprises and from M/s. Xtra Image to M/s. JMS Infotech by striking out the earlier names. No logical explanation in this regard was provided by consignor or consignees. It appears that M/s. Sardana Enterprises and M/s. JMS Infotech first tried to smuggle 90,000 (25,000 + 25,000 + 15,000) Memory Cards by mis-declaring and reflecting wrong names in HAWB without any address. When the offended goods were intercepted and seized by Customs, they produced documents and claimed ownership and indicted their willingness to discharge appropriate Customs duty leviable on the goods.

(vi) M/s. Cruze Courier provided the necessary assistance in attempt to smuggle Memory Card, by not following the proper procedure.

(vii) The other two consignees, Mr. Tarun Kumar Nangia and Shri Vikash Kumar denied having made any such import from Hong Kong."

3. Alleging violation of various provisions of Customs Act, 1962, Courier Exports and Imports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 and Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009, notice was issued to various persons. Notice essentially alleged that the import consignments which were intercepted by the officers did not contain any clear address or declaration of the contents and there was an attempt to substitute the name of the importers, after interception of the cargo. The goods were not properly declared for contents as well as value and accordingly, apart from proposing confiscation of the goods, enhancement of value, notice also proposed penalties on various noticees. As noted earlier, we are concerned only with two such notices in the present appeal.

4. With reference to first appellant (M/s. Sardana Enterprises), it was alleged that they did not produce documents relating to booking of consignments at Hong Kong as claimed by them. No invoice relating to goods was found along with the goods at the time of examination by the officers on 23.04.2012. The Airway bill had shown that the consignment was shipped to one M/s. Raja Traders with no identifiable address or contact, which was later, amended to M/s. Sardana Enterprises. Such substitution, which was much after the interception of cargo by the customs, is only to avoid penal provisions, as an afterthought after attempted illicit import was detected.

5. The appellant submitted explanation on their part in response to the show cause notice. The case was adjudged by the Original Authority, who held that the goods claimed by the appellant viz. 50,000 pieces of Micro SD Memory Cards, which included 12500 2GB 'Strontratium' brand memory cards are liable for confiscation. The goods were allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 15 lakhs in terms of Section 125 of the Act. The value of the imported goods was re-determined at Rs. 57,69,008/- with a duty liability of Rs. 5,39,747/-. A penalty of Rs. 2 lakh under Section 112(a) with a further penalty of Rs. 5,39,747/- under Section 114AA of the Act were imposed on Shri Gopal Sardana, Proprietor of M/s. Sardana Enterprises.

6. Ld. Counsel appearing for M/s. Sardana Enterprises submitted that the said goods were imported by them on credit basis from Hong Kong. The mistake committed by the courier at shipping end in Hong Kong by not giving proper address or not including the invoice along with the consignment cannot be held against the appellant. When the error was noticed, correction was carried out. They have also submitted proper invoice for the imported goods. It is prayed that as they have already paid the redemption fine, penalty and duty, the goods should be released in good condition to them. The same has not been done by the Customs Authorities in spite of the repeated requests. It appears that the goods have been stolen from the warehouse and the appellant is put to financial loss. The Ld. Counsel also pleaded that the redemption fine and the penalty imposed on the appellant is excessive and not sustainable.

7. Ld. AR contested the appeal. He submitted that the role of the appellant in the transaction of the impugned goods has been brought out by corroborative evidence and also the statement given by the various persons including the proprietor of the appellant firm. It is a clear modes operandi attempted to misdeclared as sensitive electronic items to avoid huge customs duty. An attempt has been made by not giving proper description or details of importer in the consignment. After the interception of the consignment, the appellant came forward to claim the cargo with a plea that the shipping courier in Hong Kong committed an error. Ld. AR submitted that this is an afterthought, to avoid penalty and the other consequences, the appellant have submitted invoice etc. later. Even the invoice submitted did not carry the full details regarding brand name etc. of the product. He supported the findings of the Original Authority with reference to this appellant.

8. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records.

9. It is a fact that the courier consignment did not contain the necessary statutory details on the pack. The details contained were vague and there was a clear attempt in mis-declaration of high value electronic items to avoid customs duty. This much is apparent from the facts as narrated in the impugned order. Much after interception of cargo, the appellant came forward with invoice and other details claiming ownership of the goods. We note that even at that time, the appellant could not produce necessary supporting evidence with reference to booking of consignment at Hong Kong and also the reason for invoice dated 15.04.2012 not having full particulars like name etc. of the imported goods. We note that that the facts and circumstances of the case, as revealed by the investigation, have been examined by the Original Authority before arriving at a conclusion. In this regard, the Original Authority observed as below:-

"From the statement of Shri Gopal Sardana, Proprietor of M/s. Sardana Enterprises, it is clear that the consignment worth USD 67500.00 was imported from Panash Group on credit basis and the deal was made through his friend Rakesh Chotrani. I also note that Shir Gopal Sardana has also admitted that he had not taken any paper related to the goods from Panash Group as they had told him that the goods would be cleared from Customs by the person of Taj International and the duty was to be paid by the courier company at the time of clearance and at the time of delivery he was to pay duty to the courier company. This statement establishes the complicity of the individuals in the matter. Shri Gopal Sardana also admitted that he got a phone call from Taj International informing that he had to go the Customs Office for clearance of these goods. The said chain of events therefore clearly exposes the unholy intentions of the Noticees."
10. Regarding valuation, we note that the invoice submitted by the appellant did not carry the brand name of the product and also the country of origin. The goods have been made in China, Korea and Thiawan.

11. We are in agreement with the Original Authority regarding rejection of value declared by the appellant and re-determination of value based on the contemporaneous imports of similar goods. We also note that the appellant did not make any substantial or specific submission contesting the valuation of the imported goods. In fact, as pleaded by them, on payment of customs duty, fine and penalty, they are requesting for release of the goods seized by the Authorities.

12. With reference to the plea made by the appellant regarding imposition of excessive redemption fine and penalties, we note that the value of the goods was redetermined and fixed at Rs. 57.69 lakhs. The duty involved is Rs. 5,39,747/-. The redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakh is excessive and not justifiable. As per the normal practice, the redemption fine so fixed for release of the confiscated goods, which should generally wipe out profit that could accrue to the importer in pursuance of the such improper transaction. In the present case, we note that the redemption fine works out to more than 26% of the re-determined value. We note that the same is excessive and accordingly, reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 7.5 Lakhs.

13. An amount of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant as penalty under Section 112 (a). The said penalty is with reference to improper importation of the goods on person, who does or omits to do any act which, act or omission has been render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. In the present case, as discussed above, there is clear justification for such penalty on the appellant. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

14. We note a further penalty of Rs. 5,39,747/- (equal to the duty amount) was imposed on the appellant in terms of Section 114 (AA). Considering that already a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant, we find that penalty under Section 114 AA can be reduced to Rs. 1 lakh. Such reduction is justifiable keeping in mind that the total duty involvement in the present consignment itself is only Rs. 5.39 lakhs.

15. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we dismiss the appeal filed by M/s. Sardana Enterprises except for reduction of redemption fine and penalty under Section 114 AA, as mentioned above.

16. The second appeal is by M/s. Express Industry Council of India against imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 117 of the Act. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and ld. AR for the Revenue. The impugned order held against the appellant, who is authorized to handle cargo in the customs area, only on the ground that they have been allowed another person as a sub-contractor to do the activity of handling cargo. This was held to be in violation of Regulation 6(1)(h) of 2009 Regulations. The said Regulation stipulates that the custodian shall not permit for import cargo to enter the customs area or to be unloaded therein without the import report or import manifest having been filed by the proper officer. We note that the provisions of Section 117 can be invoked against any person, who contravenes any provisions of Customs Act or fails to comply with any provisions of the said Act with which it was his duty to comply. Section 117 is a miscellaneous provision for imposition of penalty, where no other provisions will apply. In the present case, the impugned order records that the loose administration by the appellant, who is a custodian of import cargo resulted in the attempt to improper import of the impugned goods. We note that the consignment from Hong Kong has landed in New Delhi through courier. The courier consignment did not contain the required partic

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ulars of recipient's name and full address and also declaration regarding its content. No documents for clearance of such cargo have been filed with the customs. The goods have been intercepted based on a prior information by the Customs Authorities. We find that the custodian had no prior information about any possible attempt of improper importation of goods through courier service. In any case, the impugned order did not bring out the exact violation committed by the custodian with reference to the present cargo, which will attract penalty under the provisions of Customs Act. The custodian did not file any documents containing improper particulars nor abetted any such improper importation or subsequent clearance. As already noted the goods have been intercepted much before the customs clearance process could be completed. With reference to the sub-contracting of work by the custodian, we find that the appellant have provided certain explanation. We are not going into such facts or merits of the said submissions. We note that the facts and evidences as noticed by the impugned order did not bring any act or omission on the part of the custodian in order to attract a penalty under Customs Act, 1962. Any violation of 2009 Regulation are to be dealt with separately based on the factual finding. 17. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we dismiss the appeal filed by M/s. Sardana Enterprises except for reduction of fine and penalty mentioned hereinabove and allow the appeal by M/s. Express Industry Council of India. [Order pronounced on 12.01.2018.]
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

04-08-2020 Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Capt. Bibhuti Mohan Jha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Som Nath Bhatt Versus Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Som Nath Bhatt Versus Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-07-2020 New Aadinath Plywood & Hardware Through Its Proprietor, Shri Sanjay, M.P. Versus Nandini Photo Studio, M.P. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Vikash Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Amar Chand Singh Versus C.B.I. Thru. Director, New Delhi & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-07-2020 Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., Through Its Authorized Representative, New Delhi Versus Thakar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus M/s. D.D Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Panipat 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
22-07-2020 M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (Through Its Authorised Representative), New Delhi Versus Sukhmal Jain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Sanyog Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Territory of J&K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
21-07-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi Versus Mukesh Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, R. Natraj Versus M/s. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited, Represented by its Director, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Additional Secretary (Legal), New Delhi Versus Anil Laxman Matade National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-07-2020 Khem Raj Verma & Others Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
09-07-2020 Abdul Wahid Bhat Versus Union of India, through Defence Secretary, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
09-07-2020 Ravindra Versus Union of India, through its Under Secretary, General Administration Department, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-07-2020 New Nagpur Mahila Gramin Vikas Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. & Another Versus Suman Balaji Thakre National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-07-2020 Velankani Information Systems Limited, Represented by its Manging Director, Kiron D. Shah Versus Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
07-07-2020 Rajesh Kumar Versus Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
03-07-2020 Bar Council of India, New Delhi, Represented by Its Secretary Versus Lokanath Behera Ips, Director, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
01-07-2020 Seema Shukla Versus New Delhi Municipal Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
30-06-2020 Dr. P.S. Sandeep & Others Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 Union Bank of India, Through Shri R. Rajendra Prasad, Branch Manager, Raichur Versus M/s. Tirumala Enterprises, Raichur National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-06-2020 R. Sampath Versus Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-06-2020 Ramesh Malhotra & Another Versus Emaar Mgf Land Limited, Through its Managing Director, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Sri Ananta Das, Assam & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
25-06-2020 India Pentecostal Church of God, Represented by Its General President, Pastor (Dr.) T. Valson Abraham & Another Versus Government of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
23-06-2020 Swetha Shri Selvakumar Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 M/s. Acme Trade And Agencies, ASSAM Versus Union of India Rep. By The Secy. to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-06-2020 M/s. New Green Medical Hall Versus State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
22-06-2020 M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Ravula Shanker @ Shanker Goud & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-06-2020 Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Versus The New India Assurance Company Limited Supreme Court of India
17-06-2020 D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi Versus Jasmeet Walia & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Ashish Aggarwal Versus Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-06-2020 M/s. Sbi Cards & Payments Services Ltd., New Delhi Versus Vishal Sabharwal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-06-2020 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary Posts, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Versus G. Lakshmi & Others High Court of Kerala
15-06-2020 Samri Devi Shaw Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Thampanoor, Now Represented by Its Manager, Regional Office, Kochi Versus Managing Director, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
15-06-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus Aasha Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 Integrated Enterprises India Ltd. & Another Versus Ippili Krishna Surekha Rao & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Dr. D. Euvalingam & Others Versus The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 M.V. Ramani Versus The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Punnam Chander complex, Chowrastha, Hanmkonda, Warangal Versus Sangeraboina Uppalaiah & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-06-2020 Cry for Life Society, Thrissur, Represented by Its President, E.C. George & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by The Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
05-06-2020 Suresh Nair Versus Union of India, Represented by the Ministry of External Affairs, E-Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
05-06-2020 Tanveer Jahan Versus All India Institute Of Medical Science, Through Its Director, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-06-2020 Goods & Services Tax Network, New Delhi & Others Versus M/s. Leo Distributors, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
02-06-2020 Citizens Legal Right Association, Rep. by Its President, Joshy Kalluveettil & Another Versus Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
02-06-2020 Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association, Reg No: 321/MDS, Rep by its Joint General Secretary, R. Muthukumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 New India Assurance Company, R.B.Road Extension, Mysore Versus Madevan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-05-2020 Jeetha Agnes Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary To Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
27-05-2020 Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Government of India, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-05-2020 Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
20-05-2020 A. Sennimalai Versus Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-05-2020 The Bank of New York Mellon, Through its attorney Navneet Singh Versus Indowind Energy Limited, Nungambakkam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 K.N. Anilkumar Versus Bar Council of India, Represented by Its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 Brij Kishore Dwivedi Versus Union of India, represented by and through the Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi in the Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Tripura
18-05-2020 RM. Swamy Versus Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 Jacob George Versus The Secretary Department of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
15-05-2020 T. Sivakumar Versus The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, A-Wing, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-05-2020 Sri Rama Enterprises Versus State Bank of India High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Ibrahim Elettil, President, Dubai KMCC, Elettil, Kozhikode & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
08-05-2020 AVR Enterprises Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
07-05-2020 Asa Uma Farooq Versus Union of India, through its its Secrtary, Ministry of Home Afairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-05-2020 K. Lakshmanan, Adilabad, Telangana Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Department of Defence, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
05-05-2020 B. Abimathi Versus The Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-05-2020 Sam Uttan Versus The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
30-04-2020 T. Hubertson Versus The Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-04-2020 United Nurses Association, Through Its State President Shoby Joseph, Thrissur Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
28-04-2020 Marrapu Sankara Rao Versus Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi High Court of Andhra Pradesh
27-04-2020 Dr. Suresh & Others Versus University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
24-04-2020 Dr. G.P. Arulraj Versus The Government of India, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-04-2020 State Bank of India, A Government of India Undertaking Rep by its DGM and Branch Head Stressed Asset Management Branch, Hyderabad Versus The Union of India, Ministry of Finance Rep by its Secretary Services Tax Wing, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-04-2020 T. Sivakumar Versus The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-04-2020 Dr. Mahesh Sharma & Another Versus Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Rajasthan
16-04-2020 M/s. Mahaluxmi & Co., Rep by its Partner K. Jagatheeswaran Versus M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Chairman, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-04-2020 Priya Acka Thomas & Another Versus The Government of India, Rep by its Joint Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2020 T. Ganesh Kumar Versus Union of India Represented by Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2020 S. Jimraj Milton Versus Union of India Represented by It's Cabinet Secretary Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2020 M. Munusamy Versus The Secretary to its Represents The Union Government of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 N. Rajagopal Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2020 ABC Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
03-04-2020 New Delhi Television Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 Suresh Chandra Das Versus The State of Tripura to be represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Secretariat Complex, West Tripura & Another High Court of Tripura
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-03-2020 Jeetendra Kumar Doley Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
20-03-2020 Aura Synergy India Ltd. & Another Versus M/s. New Age False Ceiling Co Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(4), Central Revenue Building, New Delhi Versus Registrar of Companies, M/s. Visual Learning Pvt. Ltd. & Others National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
19-03-2020 Shaji Purushothaman Versus Union of India, Through Ministry of Corporate Affairs, A-Wing, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-03-2020 R. Raghavan, Partner of Dinamalar Group, Dinamalar (RF) New Standard Press Annex, Trichy & Others Versus Educomp Solutions Ltd, Through its Senior Manager Nithish Kumar & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-03-2020 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Praveen Kumar Versus M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-03-2020 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary To The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others Versus M.K. Ali Kunju, Tax Assistant, O/O The Director General Income Tax (Investigation), Elamkulam & Others High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 V.K. Anusree Versus Union of India, Represented by Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 Rajesh Gupta Versus Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
16-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Malay Kumar Majumder & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 The Substitute Assistant Teacher's Association, New Salem Tamenglong Versus State of Manipur High Court of Manipur