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



Shrinath Travel Agency v/s State of Rajasthan & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- TRAVEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090MH2012PTC230882

Company & Directors' Information:- SHRINATH TRAVEL AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090GJ2012PTC071043

Company & Directors' Information:- A. G. AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109DL2008PTC186212

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S AGENCY PRIVATE LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1986PTC025148

    Civil Writ Petition No. 636 of 1999

    Decided On, 13 May 1999

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.J. SHETHNA

    For the Appellant: B.L. Maheshwari, R.K. Rathi, Advocates. For the Respondents: R.P. Dave, B.S. Bhati, Additional Government Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. The petitioner M/s. Shrinath Travel Agency has prayed in this petition that the respondents be directed not to interfere in the operation of the vehicles by the petitioner under the permits granted to it as All India Tourist permit under the Motor Vehicles (All India Permits for Tourist Operators) Rules, 1993. It is further prayed that the respondents be restrained from illegally harassing the petitioner by illegal detention and seizure of the vehicles and to protect the life and property of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner claims to be the holder of All India Tourist permits as a tourist-transport operator from the State of Rajasthan and also from the State of Gujarat and opted the Rajasthan State as one of the States to ply on the authorisation issued under the Motor Vehicles (All India Permit for Tourist Transport Operators) Rules, 1993 (in short, the Rules of 1993). The list of vehicles covered under the tourist-transport permits is annexed as Schedule A to the petition having as many as 62 vehicles.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that Transport authorities and Police Department deliberately started to harass the petitioner and other operators by illegally detaining and seizing their vehicles, therefore, the representation Annex. 2 was submitted by the luxury-bus operators on 20-8-98. However, the same was not at all considered.

4. On 29-12-98, vehicle No. RJ-30/P-0061, covered under the permit in the name of the petitioner, was seized by the respondent authorities and in the seizure Panchnama it is stated that at the time of checking 38 passengers were found in the bus and 23 passengers were travelling from Udaipur to Jaipur and 7 passengers were travelling from Nathdwara to Jaipur which was in breach of the conditions of the permit. It was also mentioned that the tax paid of Rs. 12,000/- but the SRT comes to Rs. 9,000/-per month and the difference of tax was due. Similarly, on 2-2-99, bus No. RJ-01/P-1188 was seized on the allegation that as per the passenger-list there were 24 passengers mentioned in it but, at the time of checking, there were 29 passengers sitting in the bus and 5 passengers boarded on the way and the driver failed to produce any copy of the contract showing that the vehicle was covered under the tourist permit. The seizure Panchnama is Annex. 3.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent Department has started intentionally checking from 2-2-99 to 9-2-99 and irrespective of the fact whether there is any lacuna or not in the relevant papers and in breach of any conditions or law they started to detain the vehicles of the petitioner on the spot and also of other operators and were not releasing the same for 2 to 3 days unless the amount was paid. It is further stated that because of the target of collecting the revenue the respondent Department started to collect the money from the petitioner and other operators in the name of tax of penalty etc. Therefore, this petition.

6. Learned counsel Shri R.P. Dave and Shri B.S. Bhati, appearing for the respondents, raised preliminary objections about the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner may be the owner of 62 vehicles but he cannot file one petition for 62 vehicles because it will be a separate cause for each vehicle and the petitioner instead of filing 62 petitions has filed only one petition, therefore, this petition should be dismissed. There is lot of force in this preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents. I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner should have filed separate 62 petitions for 62 vehicles as for every vehicle there was a separate cause. Hence, on this ground alone the petition was required to be dismissed.

7. The second objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents was that for the vehicles mentioned in Schedule A to the petition the petitioner is approaching Courts to Courts and obtaining orders of restraining the Transport authorities from seizing the vehicles and under the garb of such orders plied the same vehicles in contravention of the conditions of the permits. In the reply-affidavit it has been clearly pointed out that before filing this petition the petitioner filed suit No. 194/96 before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Udaipur City (North) on March 19, 1998 with the same prayer that the vehicles mentioned in Schedule A to this petition may not be seized. Similarly, the petitioner filed suit before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Ahmedabad (Rural) with the similar prayer for the same vehicles and obtained orders. Against that order the State of Rajasthan approached the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad and got the order passed by the trial Court stayed. Appeal against that order was also dismissed by the relevant Bench of the Gujarat High Court. Thereafter, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 861/ 99 was filed by one Jagdish Chandra before the Jaipur Bench of this Court at Jaipur. This is the modus operandi of the petitioner and other operators to defeat the purpose of checking and collecting the tax and penalty from them. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner had alternative remedy of civil suit before the appropriate Civil Court and when the petitioner and others also filed suit before the Civil Courts of State of Rajasthan as well as State of Gujarat then this Court should not entertain such writ petition and should dismiss it solely on this ground.

8. There is lot of force in this second preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents. It appears that the persons like petitioner and other operators are filing suit after suit before the Civil Courts at different places and, after obtaining ex parte interim orders, continue to ply their vehicles in an illegal manner. The modus operandi of the petitioner and other operators is apparent. This Court has to view this seriously. When the petitioner had an alternative remedy of suit and, in fact, the same was availed of and the suit was already filed by the petitioner for the same vehicles then this Court would not entertain such writ petition.

9. On merits, learned counsel Shri Maheshwari submitted that the petitioner is a recognised tourist-transport operator and they are separate class and they cannot be harassed by the respondents in this manner. It was further submitted by Shri Maheshwari that the petitioner was granted permit under the scheme framed under the 1993 and Rule 1(4) of the Rules of 1993 clearly provides that the conditions prescribed in Rules 82 to 85A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short, the Rules of 1989) shall not apply to the permits granted under the scheme. He, therefore, submitted that additional condition of Rule 85 (of 1989 Rules) will not apply to the petitioner. This submission of Mr. Maheshwari has to be rejected for the simple reason that the tourist vehicle is defined u/s 2(40) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as per the definition the tourist vehicle or the contract carriage cannot be treated as stage carriage. Contract carriage means motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire or reward or on contract, whether express or implied for the use of such vehicle, as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein, and entered therein, and entered into by a person with the holder of permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorised in this behalf for a fixed or agreed rate or sum. From the reply affidavit it is clear that the petitioner used to ply the vehicle as stage carriage and by this petition the declaration is sought that it can use the tourist vehicle as stage carriage. The petitioner's vehicle is a contract carriage and it cannot be plied otherwise except as provided under the definition contained in Section 2(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the Supreme Court Judgment in support of their submission in case of Nirmala Jagdishchandra Kabra Vs. The Transport Commissioner and others, In Nirmala's case (supra), the Supreme Court observed (Para 4) :

"It is true that if the holder of the vehicle obtains a contract carriage, the owner may carry a passenger or passengers for hire or reward on contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of such vehicle as whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum. In other words, the very permit for which the contract for carriage of the passengers granted should Contain the names of passengers to carry from one destination to another destination without picking up or setting down en route for hire or reward but when the holder of permit is another and permits them to carry the passengers and makes the contract dehors those mentioned in the list of passengers, enclosed to the permit as contract carriage and takes the passengers from one destination to another, even without picking up or setting

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

down en route, the necessary consequence would be that the vehicle has been or is being used as a stage carriage but not a contract carriage." and held that the authority had rightly detained the vehicle for the contravention of the conditions of the contract. 10. Before parting, I must state that learned counsel Shri Maheswari for the petitioner tried to rely upon the unreported Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court, delivered on July 14, 1998 in writ petition No. 12119/96 (since reported in Indo Canadian Transport Co. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, I have refrained myself from dealing with the same as the matter is squarely covered by the Supreme Court judgment against the petitioner on merits. 11. In view of the above discussion, the aforesaid preliminary objections raised by learned counsel for the respondents are upheld and the petition is dismissed on merits as well. The stay granted earlier stands vacated forwith. Final Result : Dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

19-05-2020 The Federal Agency for State Property Management of the Russian Federation (ROSIMUSHCESTVO) Versus Saraf Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-05-2020 Mohet Hojai Versus National Investigation Agency Supreme Court of India
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
07-04-2020 (The State) The National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Assam Versus Akhil Gogoi High Court of Gauhati
10-03-2020 S. Nijam Ali @ Nijam Versus Union of India, Rep. by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency, Kochi Branch High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 R. Natarajan Versus The Project Director, Project Implementation Agency (P.I.A) Emergency Tsunami Reconstruction Project, Puducherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd. (Japan) Versus Orient Ship Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-01-2020 Rafi Ahmed & Others Versus The Deputy Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency Cochin (Camp at Chennai) High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 Omsai Shipping and Clearing Agency and Others V/S The Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
20-12-2019 Deepak Transport Agency, Hydeerabad Versus The Madras Pharmaceuticals, Rep. By Subrogee/Power Agent, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 Rama Shanu Naik Dessai Versus The Director, Goa State Urban Development Agency & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
09-12-2019 T.P. Subair @ Subu & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by National Investigating Agency, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
21-11-2019 Punjab & Sind Bank Versus M/s. Indo Foreign Commercial Agency Products Private Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
04-11-2019 V.S. Agency, Rep. by its Partner, C. Santhanam Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III Commissionerate, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-10-2019 C.P. Ajithkumar, Proprietor, Suburban Travels, Mamangalam (President, Travel, Operators Association of Kerala) & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, (Roads), Govt. Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
18-10-2019 Make My Trip (India) Private Limited Versus Make my Travel (India) Private Limited High Court of Delhi
01-10-2019 Project Implementation Agency, Pondicherry Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
06-09-2019 Mohammed Riyaz & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by the Additional Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency, Kochi High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-08-2019 The Travel & Tourism Association of Goa & Others Versus Union of India (through the Standing Counsel for the Union of India) & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
26-08-2019 Sadham @ Sadham Hussain & Others Versus The Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency, MHA Government of India, New Delhi/Cochin High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-08-2019 Ghulam Mohd. Bhat Versus National Investigating Agency High Court of Delhi
25-07-2019 In Re: Beach Mineral Producers Association Ittamozhi Road, Tirunelveli & Another Versus V. Velmurugan Proprietor of M/s Phoenix Agency, Tirunelveli & Others Competition Commission of India
24-07-2019 R (on the application of Association of Independent Meat Suppliers & Another) Versus Food Standards Agency United Kingdom Supreme Court
24-07-2019 X Versus Kuoni Travel Ltd. United Kingdom Supreme Court
16-07-2019 Farhan Shaikh Versus State (National Investigation Agency) High Court of Delhi
09-07-2019 Purbasha Das & Others Versus National Testing Agency & Others High Court of Delhi
01-07-2019 Asim Shariff Versus National Investigation Agency Supreme Court of India
14-06-2019 Central Warehousing Corporation Versus Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-06-2019 M/s N.T. Agency, Arunachal Pradesh Versus The State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh & Others High Court of Gauhati
29-05-2019 M/s. Spencers Travel Services Ltd., Chennai Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Anna Salai III Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-05-2019 R. Rejitha Kumari Versus National Investigation Agency Through Inspector General (Admn), Ministry of Home Affairs Union of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-05-2019 State by the Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency, Kochi Versus Shakul Hameed Supreme Court of India
03-05-2019 Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s. D.S. Cargo Agency, Prop.Sh. Diva Kant Jha Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
12-04-2019 The Union of India Through Nia, Kochi Through The National Investigation Agency, Branch Office, Kochi (Represented by Its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala) & Others Versus Shameer & Others High Court of Kerala
04-04-2019 Maneesha Gas Agency, Rep. by its Distributor Santha Panicker & Another Versus Senior Manager (LPG-S), Cochin Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
03-04-2019 R (on the application of Newby Foods Ltd) Versus Food Standards Agency United Kingdom Supreme Court
19-03-2019 Madhusri Konar & Another Versus New Central Book Agency Pvt Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-03-2019 Lakshadweep Travel Links & Transport Contractors Centre Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
15-02-2019 Amulya Marketing Agency Pvt. Ltd. Versus ICICI Bank Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2019 Sotc Travel Ltd.(Formerly Sotc Travel Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Begraj Agarwal & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-02-2019 National Investigation Agency (Nia), New Delhi Versus Helatoli Rochill & Others High Court of Gauhati
21-12-2018 The Corporate Manager, Corporate Educational Agency, Arch Diocese of Thrissur Versus Dincy Davis & Others High Court of Kerala
07-12-2018 National Investigation Agency, Hyderabad, Represented by its Superintendent of Police & Chief Investigating Officer, Bengaluru Versus Mohammed Ayub @ Minto Ayub High Court of Karnataka
05-12-2018 Madha Firewood Agency Thro its proprietor D. John Francis & Another Versus M/s.South Indian Bank Ltd., rep.by through its Branch Manager Silaiman Branch, Madurai District Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-10-2018 R. Dhamodarasamy Versus M/s. Srivalsa Agency (Petrol Pump), Rep by Sathya Bama, Managing Partner, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-10-2018 Central Board of Trustees, EPF Versus Gandak Area Development Agency High Court of Judicature at Patna
12-10-2018 Subair Versus Union of India rep. by the Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency MHA Government of India, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2018 T.M. Sajil Versus Union of India, Represented by The National Investigation Agency, Kochi Branch Office, Represented by Its Special Public Prosecutor, National Investigating Agency, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
19-09-2018 Madhusri Konar & Another Versus Central Book Agency Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-09-2018 M/s. Nishi Gas Agency Versus The State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
12-09-2018 Mubarak @ Mohammed Mubarak Versus Union of India, Rep. by The Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency, MHA Government of India, New Delhi (RC.03/2018/NIA/DLI) High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2018 Orathur Thiruvalluvar Uyarnilai Palli Committee, Rep.by its Secretary, (The Educational agency of Orathur Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary School), Chidambaram Taluk Versus The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-08-2018 The Education Agency, Through its Secretary & Others Versus S. Kalyani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2018 M/s. A K Transport Agency Versus Cit Appeal, Aligarh Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Agra
18-07-2018 C.C-Cochin-CUS, Custom House, Cochin Versus Kingsway Travel Agencies Pvt. LTD. Bangalore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
16-07-2018 M/s. Deepak Transport Agency Private Limited, Rep., by its Managing Director, Nitin Kumar Shah Versus The Appellate Authority In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
06-07-2018 Green Channel Travel Services Pvt. Ltd V/S C.S.T., Service Tax-Ahmedabad Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
25-06-2018 Gauri Devangan Versus Priyadarshani Gas Agency & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-05-2018 Syed Shahid Yousuf Versus National Investigation Agency High Court of Delhi
15-05-2018 International Travel House Ltd. V/S C.C.E., Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
03-05-2018 Anila Gautam Jain, Proprietor of M/s.Badal Agency) erstwhile H.P.Gas Distributor Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through the Chief Regional Manager, Navi Mumbai LPF High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2018 Union of India Represented by, Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency, Chennai Versus Mubarak @ Mohammed Mubarak High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-04-2018 Union of India Represented by, Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency, Chennai Versus Mubarak @ Mohammed Mubarak High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-04-2018 Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation Supreme Court of India
20-04-2018 Chalo Jaai Travel Club & Another Versus Hamenta Kumar Karan West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-04-2018 Abdul Salam Versus National Investigating Agency, Kochi, Represented by its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
12-04-2018 D.V.P. Muhammed Riyas Versus Union of India, Represented by National Investigation Agency, Through The Public Prosecutor, NIA. High Court of Kerala
28-03-2018 Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation Supreme Court of India
15-03-2018 H. K. Sumanasena, Manager (Acting), Special Investigations Unit, Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment & Another Versus MallawarachchigeKanishka Gunawardhana Licensee, Samasa Foreign Employment Agency & Another Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
08-03-2018 Asim Shariff Versus National Investigating Agency, Rep. By Spl. P.P., High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
08-03-2018 Ramya Auto Agency, Rep. by its Proprietor, P. Muthusamy Versus TVS Motor Company Ltd. Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-03-2018 Roji George Versus M/s. East India Transport Agency, Represented by its Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
07-03-2018 M/s. Dharani Hi-TEch Projects Pvt Ltd., Rep by its Authorised Representative, S. Veera Sekar Versus The District Collector / Chairman, D.R.D.A. (District Rural Development Agency), Pudukkottai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-02-2018 Environment Agency Versus R (on the application of Mott) United Kingdom Supreme Court
13-02-2018 N. Kannaiyan & Others Versus The Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Pudukkottai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-02-2018 The Federal Agency For State Property Management of the Russian Federation (Rosemushestvo) Versus Saraf Agencies Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-01-2018 Director District Rural Deve. Agency & Another Versus Kishorkumar D. Tank & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
19-01-2018 Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Lucknow V/S Krishna C & F Agency Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Allahabad
18-01-2018 National Travel Services Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, VIII Supreme Court of India
17-01-2018 V. Kanniappan Versus The District Collector/Chairman District Rural Development Agency Villupuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-01-2018 CCE & ST, Tirunelveli V/S Vicinivas Agency Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
16-01-2018 Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Tirunelveli V/S Vicnivas Agency Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
16-01-2018 Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Tirunelveli V/S Vicinivas Agency Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
09-01-2018 Rekha Gas Agency Versus Kailas Ambika Prasad Tiwari & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-01-2018 M/s. Northern Agency, M.G. Avenue, Thangal Bazar, Imphal represented by its Proprietor namely S.K. Hushou Pao Versus The Food Corporation of India through the Executive Director (Zone), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (NE), Ulubari, Guwahati & Others High Court of Manipur
02-01-2018 Seema Agency, A proprietorship firm, through its Proprietor Jitmal Jain, through its Power of Attorney Holder Sanjay Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-12-2017 M/s. Vivek Agency Thru' Prop. Gyan Prakash Kesarwani Versus The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-11-2017 Roopesh @ Praveen Versus Union of India, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor, National Investigation Agency, [NIA] High Court of Kerala
31-10-2017 George Filip Kalarikkal, Director, Good Shepered Modern-English School, Plunda, Chungathara, Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram District Versus Riya, The Travel Expert, Kannankandy Chambers, Aryidath Palam, Calicut & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
26-09-2017 Sri Balaji Agency V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
25-09-2017 Suja Thomas, Pathanamthitta District., Now Working as Azzad Travel and Tourism, Kuwait Versus George Koshy, Pathanamthitta District, now Working at, Kuwait Drilling Fluids, & Another High Court of Kerala
13-09-2017 Link International Travel Agents (P) Ltd. and Others V/S Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
05-09-2017 T. Pushpanathan, Correspondent/Educational Agency, Alagammai Achi Memorial Aided Elementary School & Others Versus The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-09-2017 Jeyaraj Automobile Agency, Rep. By its Proprietor P. Jeyasuresh Jayaraj, Periyakulam, Theni Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Periyakulam Assessment Circle, Theni Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-08-2017 Five Star Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
16-08-2017 Travel Food Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Airports Authority of India High Court of Delhi
09-08-2017 Gola Gas Agency & Another Versus United India Insurance Company & Others Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow
08-08-2017 Thangaraj @ Thamizharasan Versus The State Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police National Investigation Agency, Hyderabad (Camp at Puducherry) High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2017 Sri Ganesh Shipping Agency V/S Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T., Mangalore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box