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



Shaji B. John, Kings International Ltd., Quilon & Others v/s The Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Cochin, Represented by Its Secretary, Dr. G. Santhanakrishnan


Company & Directors' Information:- KINGS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U05001TN1991PLC021776

Company & Directors' Information:- KINGS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L05001TN1991PLC021776

Company & Directors' Information:- KINGS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25199UP1994PLC017344

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

Company & Directors' Information:- P R EXPORTS LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1981PLC034199

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

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

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- A O V EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2002PTC114617

Company & Directors' Information:- M A R EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC046991

Company & Directors' Information:- COCHIN EXPORTS P LTD [Active] CIN = U51909KL1989PTC005424

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

Company & Directors' Information:- D. R. PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52320DL2011PTC213508

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

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

Company & Directors' Information:- A EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14101DL2003PTC122819

Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899DL1971PTC005688

Company & Directors' Information:- COCHIN CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999KL1963PTC002029

Company & Directors' Information:- AT EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2016PTC216254

Company & Directors' Information:- DEVELOPMENT CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U13209WB1939PTC009750

Company & Directors' Information:- D R EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1975PTC007859

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND A PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL1991PTC042938

Company & Directors' Information:- COCHIN MARINE PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909KL1991PTC006010

Company & Directors' Information:- A M EXPORTS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109PB1996PLC017635

Company & Directors' Information:- S D MARINE PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U05004AP1987PTC007264

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND A EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC038349

Company & Directors' Information:- IN EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC034535

Company & Directors' Information:- S. E. EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U05004UP1995PTC017843

Company & Directors' Information:- I TO N EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52322DL1995PTC072744

Company & Directors' Information:- G. EXPORTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909DL1989PTC034690

Company & Directors' Information:- E-JOHN INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93030MH2015PTC267277

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

Company & Directors' Information:- MARINE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31900TZ2014PTC020831

Company & Directors' Information:- KINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN1964PTC005230

    Arb. A. No. 7 of 2009

    Decided On, 13 November 2019

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. NAGARESH

    For the Appellants: V. Philip Mathew, Advocate. For the Respondent: Joseph Kodianthara, Mathews K. Uthuppachan, Terry V. James, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Nagaresh, J.

1. Aggrieved by order dated 11.04.2008 in O.P.(Arb) No.140/2004 of the District Court, Ernakulam, the appellants have preferred this Arbitration Appeal invoking the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Appellants 1 to 6 are Promoters/Directors of the 7th appellant-Company. The 7th appellant-Company undertook setting up of a project of integrated shrimp farming with a total capacity of 150 Million shrimp seed per annum and processing facilities at Tutucorin and Nellore. The processing capacity was to be 6700 Tonnes per annum. The work was to be completed by March, 1994 at an expected cost of RS. 2750 lakhs. The respondent is a statutory body constituted under the Marine Products Exports Development Authority Act. The respondent entered into a Financial Collaboration Agreement with the appellants with respect to the said project on 08.07.1993 under which the respondent was allotted 5 lakhs equity shares with a total value of Rs.50 lakhs. Under Clause 6.2 of the agreement, appellants 1 to 6 were bound to buy back the said equity shares from the respondent. Though the appellants were required to repurchase the shares held by the respondent on 07.07.1995, the appellants could not repurchase in view of the restrictive guidelines issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India which prohibited transfer of shares under preferential allotment, for a period of three years.

3. Thereupon, the respondent filed Arbitration Request No.17/1998 before this Court and a Sole Arbitrator was appointed. The said Arbitrator dismissed the claim of the respondent as per Award dated 11.11.2000. Subsequently, the respondent filed Arbitration Request No.11/2001 and this Court appointed Sri.Somachudan Nair as the Sole Arbitrator. Before the Arbitrator, the respondent claimed a sum of Rs.1,15,26,027.40. After considering the evidence available on record, the Sole Arbitrator passed an Award dated 14.01.2004 allowing the claim made by the respondent.

4. Aggrieved by the said Award dated 14.01.2004, the appellants preferred O.P. (Arb) No.140/2004 before the District Court, Ernakulam invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. After hearing both sides, the District Court concluded that the claim made by the respondent is not barred by the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata since at the time of the earlier arbitration proceedings, the cause of action under Clause 6.2 of the agreement had not arisen. The appellants had raised a contention that since liquidation proceedings have been initiated against the 7th appellant-Company, the Arbitrator ought to have stopped his proceedings. On this point, the District Court found that the agreement in question was between appellants 1 to 6 - Promoters and the respondent and there is no agreement between the 7th appellant-Company and the respondent. The agreement from which the arbitration proceedings arise was signed by the Promoters in their personal capacity. Hence, even if liquidation proceedings were initiated against the 7th appellant-Company, the arbitration proceedings cannot be said to be illegal, held the District Court.

5. The District Court did neither find favour with the argument of the appellants that the agreement in question was not entered into by the Promoters of the 7th appellant-Company as appellants 1 to 6 were Directors of the Company. The District Court further held that any proceeding pending under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act will not be a bar to the arbitral proceedings.

6. On merits, the District Court found that the Arbitrator has elaborately considered the materials before him as well as the legal contentions urged by the appellants and hence, there is no ground under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to interfere with and set aside the impugned Award. The District Court, therefore, dismissed O.P. (Arb) No.140/2004 as per order dated 11.04.2008, which is now under challenge.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Sole Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the disputes involved in the matter since as per Clause 10 of the agreement, disputes arising therefrom are to the resolved by two Arbitrators along with an Umpire. Therefore, the Award impugned before the District Court was liable to be interfered with. The counsel for the appellants further urged that as the claims of the respondent were considered and rejected by an earlier Award, a second arbitration was not maintainable and the same is hit by the principles of res judicata. Alternatively, the counsel argued that the court below ought to have found that the respondent has abandoned and waived its claim based on their rights arising out of Ext.A1 agreement, by permitting O.P. No.34/2001 to be dismissed as not pressed. The findings of the District Court regarding res judicata and constructive res judicata are, therefore, liable to be interfered with.

8. The counsel for the appellants further urged that arbitration proceedings should not have been continued in view of the winding up proceedings initiated under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act against the 7th appellant and the District Court ought to have held so. The appellants did not purchase the shares only in view of the prohibition imposed by the SEBI. The appellants could not have overcome the statutory prohibition. Therefore, the District Court ought to have held that the doctrine of frustration and Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972 would come into play. On these grounds, the order dated 11.04.2008 of the District Court, Ernakulam is liable to be set aside, contended the counsel for the appellants.

9. The respondent entered appearance and objected to the contentions of the appellants. We have heard the arguments raised by the counsel on either side and perused the records.

10. As regards appointment of Sole Arbitrator, against the conditions contained in the arbitral agreement, it is seen that the respondent by letter dated 23.02.2001 intimated the appellants of nomination of Mr. N. Sukumaran, Retired District Judge and called upon the appellants to nominate their Arbitrator within 30 days. On the failure of the appellants to do so, the respondent filed A.R. No.11/2001 before this Court and this Court appointed the present Arbitrator as the Sole Arbitrator. Therefore, the appellants cannot now be heard to contend that appointment of Sole Arbitrator is illegal, as being violative of the agreement.

11. The appellants urged the grounds of res judicata and constructive res judicata, in order to set aside the Arbitral Award. The contention is that the respondent had earlier filed Arbitration Request No.17/1998 before this Court and the Arbitrator appointed pursuant thereto found that appellants are not liable to repurchase the shares. The claim, therefore, was dismissed on 11.11.2000. The respondent, therefore, filed O.P. (Arb) No.34/2001 before the District Court which was later dismissed as not pressed. The respondent, therefore, was barred by the principles of res judicata. But, the facts revealed from the records would show that the claim made in A.R. No.17/1998 was rejected by the Arbitrator for the reason that appellants were not liable to repurchase the shares because the guidelines of the SEBI prohibited such purchase within three years of its issuance. The rejection, therefore, will not preclude the respondent from making the claim after the three year period and such claim will not be hit by the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata. The respondent also could not have treated as having abandoned the claim by not pressing the O.P. (Arb) No.34/2001.

12. The argument of the appellants that the arbitration proceedings should not have been continued in view of the winding up proceedings initiated under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 against the 7th appellant-Company, cannot also stand the scrutiny of law. Section 22 provides that where in respect of an Industrial Company, an enquiry is pending or any scheme is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal is pending under the provisions of the Act, then no proceedings for winding up or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the Industrial Company and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the Industrial Company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the Company shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or the Appellate Authority.

13. A reading of Section 22 would make it clear that what is prohibited thereunder, are proceedings of winding up, or for execution, distress or the like against the properties of the Company, suits for recovery of money and enforcement of any security or guarantee in respect of any loans advanced to the Company. In the case on hand, the appellants have no case that they were only guarantors to the amount advanced by the respondent to the 7th appellant-Company. On the other hand, it is evident that the agreement dated 08.07.1993 was executed between the respondent and appellants 1 to 6 as Promoters, along with the 7th appellant-Company. In view of the said agreement, Section 22 of the Act, 1985 cannot bar any arbitral proceedings initiated by the respondent, against appellants 1 to 6.

14. The further contention of the appellants is that their failure to purchase shares was solely due to the prohibition imposed by SEBI, that they could not have legally abide by the said condition and hence, the District Court ought to have held that the doctrine of frustration and Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972 would come into play. In fact, the respondent had required the appellants to repurchase the shares during the period of restriction and has initiated arbitral proceedings, on the failure of the appellants. The said proceedings went against the respondent in view of the prohibitive guidelines of SEBI. After the said prohibitive period, the demand of the respondent remained unheeded and thereupon, the respondent resorted to fresh arbitral proceedings. In the said circumstances, the appellants cannot legally take a defence that the contract was frustrated or that it is hit by Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act.

15. Lastly, the appellants pointed out that the amount awarded by the Arbitrator towards interest was based on a finding that the 7th appellant had paid 20%

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

interest to ICICI Limited and IDBI. The documents produced by the appellants as Annexures-I to VI before this Court would show that the Company had settled their liabilities with its Banks on lesser rates of interests and on better terms. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd. [(2006) 7 SCC 700] and McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Others [(2006) 11 SCC 181]. The judgments of the Apex Court would not be of any help to the appellants because they had not produced any document before the Arbitrator to establish their liability to pay interest at lesser rates. We are of the firm view that such claims made on the basis of documents which Arb. Appeal No.7 OF 2009 14 were not produced before the Arbitrator and which were only produced before this Court, cannot be relied upon to give any relief to the appellants as the same would be beyond the powers of this Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In view of our finding as stated above, the Arbitration Appeal is liable to be dismissed and we dismiss the same accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

24-07-2020 P. Prabhavathi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
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
14-07-2020 The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India Versus Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Others Supreme Court of India
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
07-07-2020 Dr. Y. Kedareswari Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Social Welfare (SC Development) Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
07-07-2020 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bengaluru & Another Versus Byamma & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2020 M/s. Psa Impex Pvt Ltd Versus Graeater Noida Industrial Development & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-07-2020 Jana Samparka Samithy, Ernakulam District Committee, Represented by Its Secretary, Cochin & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Chief Secretary To Government, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
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 Far N Par (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad Rep. by its Director Naraharisetti Sirusha Versus Galt Pharma Exports Private Limited, Secunderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
26-06-2020 IRCON International Ltd. Versus M/s. Meumal Athwani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-06-2020 Bismi Aquatic Products, Rep by its Partner, M. Ashraf Ali Versus The Superintending Engineer, Ramanathapuram Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Ramanathapuram & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-06-2020 Barak Valley Hills Tribes Development Council, Assam Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
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 P.S. Srinivas Rao Versus 60th Padubidri Grama Panchayath, Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 M/s. Angelique International Limited Versus Public Electricity Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
18-06-2020 N. Krishnamoorthy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-06-2020 Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Versus Konkan Storage Systems Kochi Pvt. Ltd., South End Reclamation, Mastyapuri, Willingdon Island High Court of Kerala
15-06-2020 K.R. Ramesh & Others Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Cochin, Represented by The Superintendent of Police & Another High Court of Kerala
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
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 Awadhesh Kumar Versus Multi State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
10-06-2020 C.C. Baby & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Anticorruption Bureau (ACB), Cochin High Court of Kerala
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
02-06-2020 C. Sasiyendran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-06-2020 Padmavani Educational & Charitable Trust, Rep.by its Joint Managing Trustee, Salem Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
01-06-2020 K. Shanthi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 M/s SGS Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Bihar Urban Development Agency BUDA, Patna & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-06-2020 Nagen Chandra Das & Others Versus The State of Assam, Rep. by the Comm. And Secy., Deptt. of Urban Development Deptt., Dispur & Others High Court of Gauhati
29-05-2020 N. Vijayakumary Versus The Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited, Registered Office Thrissur, Represented By Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
26-05-2020 M/s. Mulberry Silks Limited (formerly M/s. Shakashambana Silks Exports (P) Ltd.), 'Mulberry House', Rep.by its Director R.K. Bothra Versus Settlement Commission (IT & WT), Additional Bench, Ministry of Finance, 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
18-05-2020 Mohan Products Pvt. Ltd & Others Versus State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Raipur & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
14-05-2020 Horlicks Limited & Another Versus Zydus Wellness Products Limited High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 V. Srinivas Chowdary & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Gaddam Koteswaramma Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Ravipati Nagasarala & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
07-05-2020 State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai Versus M/s. PRP Exports, M/s. PRP Granites through its Power Agent/Partner, P. Sureshkumar Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-05-2020 Prabhu & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Housing & Urban Development, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
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
30-04-2020 Romesh Kumar Bajaj Versus Delhi Development Authority 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
30-04-2020 Delhi Development Authority & Others Versus Pushpa Lata & Others High Court of Delhi
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
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 P. Damodhar Versus The Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited rep by its Joint Managing Director, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-04-2020 South Durban Community Environmental Alliance Versus MEC For Economic Development, Tourism And Environmental Affairs Kwazulu-Natal Provincial Government & Another Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
08-04-2020 Civilian Welfare & Development Trust (Regd.) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
04-04-2020 ABC Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
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 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Bengaluru Development Authority V/S Sudhakar Hegde & Others Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 M/s. Rite Choice Foundations and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, C.K. Sridhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-03-2020 Jayakumar Assistant Professor-Cum-Assistant Director, Centre For Social Exclusion & Inclusion, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus Dr. Jyothi S. Nair & Others High Court of Kerala
13-03-2020 Dr. Rajesh Jhorawat Versus Life Cell International Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
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 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-03-2020 K.P. Rahul & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Cochin & Others High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 S.S. Sundaresan Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-03-2020 Utkal Maheshwari & Another Versus Cox & Kings Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 M/s. Meyer Apparel Ltd. Versus M/s. Panchanan International Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
11-03-2020 Jerome Velho Versus State of Goa, through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
10-03-2020 V.S. Senthil Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-03-2020 Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Choda Bhutia & Others Versus State of Sikkim, Through the Secretary, Human Resources & Development Department Government of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
06-03-2020 V. Gurusamy Versus The Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-03-2020 Om Prakash Swami Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 Balbir Rajput V/S R.P. Exports & Others High Court of Delhi
05-03-2020 Bimalkumar Manubhai Savalia Shareholder and Director of M/s Radheshyam Agro Products Pvt. Ltd, At-Sajiyavadar, Taluka: Amreli District: Amreli Versus Bank of India, Gujarat & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 R. Praveen Versus The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Ravindra Manik Shinde & Another Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Abhishek Anand & Another Versus M/s. SBO Exports Private Limited National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
04-03-2020 Madhya Pradesh Housing & Infrastructure Development Board & Another Versus Vijay Bodana & Others Supreme Court of India
03-03-2020 State of West Bengal Versus PAM Development Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-03-2020 Abdul Salam & Others Versus Delhi Development Authority & Another High Court of Delhi
02-03-2020 In The Matter of:Living Consumer Products Private Limited Through its duly Authorized Signatory Jaideep Hotha Versus Play Games 24x7 Private Limited Through its duly Authorized Signatory Prabhu Vijayakumar National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
02-03-2020 Birru Prathap Reddy & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
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
27-02-2020 Prosound Products Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Partner Pradeep Ahuja & Another Versus John Enterprises, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Mann Housing Development & Others V/S Paarijat Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-02-2020 M.P. Road Development Corporation Versus Jagannath & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
26-02-2020 The Administrator, City and Industrial Development Corporation [CIDCO] & Others Versus Padmakar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-02-2020 Burdwan Development Authority & Others Versus Arifa Khatun & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-02-2020 Anil Dattatraya Girme & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Ministry of Urban Development, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad