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



Shristi Communication Network v/s Technobile Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- NETWORK LIMITED [Active] CIN = L32209DL1989PLC034797

Company & Directors' Information:- C P SYSTEMS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29199DL1999PTC101718

Company & Directors' Information:- T SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2004PTC127138

Company & Directors' Information:- A K M SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC018546

Company & Directors' Information:- E N COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92132DL2005PTC143469

Company & Directors' Information:- S A NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51420MH2001PTC133207

Company & Directors' Information:- V V NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U64200TN2011PTC082529

Company & Directors' Information:- T C COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2000PTC105354

Company & Directors' Information:- W B M SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC017764

Company & Directors' Information:- A R G SYSTEMS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PLC062621

Company & Directors' Information:- P. K. COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92141DL1984PTC017748

Company & Directors' Information:- S SYSTEMS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72200DL2001PTC111270

Company & Directors' Information:- SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059377

Company & Directors' Information:- V S S SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U03000TZ1997PTC007933

Company & Directors' Information:- T I COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109HP2009PTC031079

Company & Directors' Information:- I L SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18100GJ1999PTC037104

Company & Directors' Information:- A V SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31909PN2001PTC015788

Company & Directors' Information:- N D T SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210MH1996PTC104744

Company & Directors' Information:- TECHNOBILE SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100HR2011PTC042569

Company & Directors' Information:- S P P S SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2000PTC033732

Company & Directors' Information:- L S I SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32109DL2000PTC105666

Company & Directors' Information:- U C SYSTEMS INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72200DL1997PTC084267

Company & Directors' Information:- L C SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55200PB2012PTC036880

Company & Directors' Information:- C I SYSTEMS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45200TG1983PTC003915

Company & Directors' Information:- M J SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2005PTC150591

Company & Directors' Information:- R R SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007DL1999PTC098142

Company & Directors' Information:- M B M SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30006DL1988PTC030404

Company & Directors' Information:- C SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31103TN2009PTC071155

Company & Directors' Information:- R M I SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KA2011PTC060246

Company & Directors' Information:- W & S SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74910TN2005PTC055568

Company & Directors' Information:- M. Y. T. SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74990TG2016PTC110104

Company & Directors' Information:- D C S SYSTEMS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72100MP2000PLC014224

Company & Directors' Information:- M C NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1998PTC094287

Company & Directors' Information:- I O SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG1998PTC029166

Company & Directors' Information:- S E C O M SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31909HR2009PTC039084

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND D COMMUNICATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64120GJ1997PLC031879

Company & Directors' Information:- S V G NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32203DL1998PTC093917

Company & Directors' Information:- D M SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100DL1999PTC101817

Company & Directors' Information:- S B T (INDIA) NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2000PTC034445

Company & Directors' Information:- E-SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200WB2003PTC096700

Company & Directors' Information:- P & G COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH2013PTC251505

Company & Directors' Information:- N R NETWORK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2001PTC112418

Company & Directors' Information:- NETWORK SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC067294

Company & Directors' Information:- J B SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KL1997PTC011510

Company & Directors' Information:- COMMUNICATION NETWORK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U22110DL2001PTC113038

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND S SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200MH1996PTC103819

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND M SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U32101UP1993PTC015352

Company & Directors' Information:- S S V SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300TN1996PTC037072

Company & Directors' Information:- C C SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31100TG1996PTC023469

Company & Directors' Information:- P J COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC105416

Company & Directors' Information:- S S NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL1999PTC102107

Company & Directors' Information:- S M B NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TZ2011PTC017481

Company & Directors' Information:- R B SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31300RJ1990PTC005689

Company & Directors' Information:- E D H SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1991PTC045384

Company & Directors' Information:- V J NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52392TN2008PTC066742

Company & Directors' Information:- F A SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100MH2004PTC148941

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND P SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900PN2013PTC146918

Company & Directors' Information:- G. K. SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PN2006PTC129225

Company & Directors' Information:- M K COMMUNICATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U72900HP2006PTC030292

Company & Directors' Information:- A T NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909CH2001PTC024541

Company & Directors' Information:- I T SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72400AS1999PTC005824

Company & Directors' Information:- H V COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52602DL2009PTC193309

Company & Directors' Information:- R D SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100DL2000PTC103462

Company & Directors' Information:- V C SYSTEMS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72200DL2001PTC111812

Company & Directors' Information:- K B N SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64204DL1997PTC088904

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND A COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92132DL2001PTC110975

Company & Directors' Information:- A B SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000DL2012PTC234774

Company & Directors' Information:- H. K. COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64100DL2013PTC255831

Company & Directors' Information:- B R COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64203DL2002PTC114477

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND V NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U32201MP2007PTC019567

Company & Directors' Information:- S R SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC104743

Company & Directors' Information:- H V K NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1996PTC079365

Company & Directors' Information:- E R SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2008PTC061904

Company & Directors' Information:- R & T SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2008PTC179617

Company & Directors' Information:- N A COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC182901

Company & Directors' Information:- G & D COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64200MP2007PTC019633

Company & Directors' Information:- Q S Q SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109KA2000PTC026269

    W.P. (C) 7327 of 2019 & CM Nos. 30516 of 2019 & 30517 of 2019

    Decided On, 10 July 2019

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

    For the Petitioner: Vikram Singh, Ms. Smita Singh & Ms. Bhanu Pant, Advocates. For the Respondents: Raj Shekhar Rao, Ms. M. Khanna, Gaurav Sanswal & Ms. Shivani Dham, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning orders dated 11.1.2019 and 7.5.2019 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'TDSAT'). The said impugned orders are common orders passed in the batch of petitions preferred by respondent No. 1 (hereafter 'TSPL'), under Sections 14 and 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (hereafter 'the TRAI Act').

2. By the impugned order dated 11.1.2019, TDSAT had listed the petitions filed by TSPL for final hearing on the relief regarding the return of Set Top Boxes (STBs) or value thereof. The said order was passed considering the petitioner's objections that the said relief was a final relief and could not be granted as an interim order. TDSAT accepted the said contention and decided to hear the matter in regard to the said relief finally. TDSAT further held that oral evidence was not required for deciding the controversy and permitted the parties to file further material by way of evidence on affidavit.

3. By the impugned order dated 7.5.2019, TDSAT, inter alia, allowed TSPL's claim for return of STBs and directed the petitioner to return 880 STBs within a period of two weeks and on failure to do so, pay compensation quantified at Rs. 11,88,000/- within a period of further two weeks. TDSAT further held that in the event the said amount was not paid, the petitioner would be at liberty to initiate execution proceedings to realize the same with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

4. Mr. Vikram Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on, essentially, two fronts. First, he has submitted that the impugned order dated 11.1.2019 is unreasoned as it does not disclose any reason for not permitting the petitioner to lead oral evidence. It is contended that TDSAT is a 'Court' and therefore, it was bound to record oral evidence. He relied upon Section 16(2) of the TRAI Act in support of his contention.

5. Second, it is contended that the impugned order dated 7.5.2019 is unsustainable as TDSAT had granted the final relief by way of an interlocutory order. He also contended that the said order is not appealable under Section 18 of the Act and therefore, the petitioner's vital right to file an appeal has been curtailed.

6. The petitioner (M/s Shrishti Communication Network) is a Local Cable Operator (LCO). TSPL and respondent No. 2 (Siti Networks Ltd) are Multi System Operators (MSO) operating in the city of Lucknow. The respondents as MSOs distribute signals of various broadcasters to the cable operators and to the consumers.

7. TSPL had affiliated its network with the petitioner and the petitioner would re-transmit the signals being supplied by TSPL to its customers. Respondent No. 1 had provided around 1066 STBs to the petitioner in the year 2013, free of cost.

8. Certain disputes arose between the petitioner and TSPL. TSPL claims that the petitioner had failed to make payments of monthly subscription fee as required. TSPL also claims that respondent No. 2 was indulging in swapping of the STBs provided by the petitioner and thus causing heavy financial loss to it. In view of the above disputes, TSPL filed a petition being Broadcasting Petition 123/2018 before TDSAT under Section 14 read with Section 14A of the TRAI Act. The reliefs sought by TSPL in that petition, are set out below:

“(a)Restrain the Respondent No. 1 from taking signals from the Respondent No. 2 or any other MSO without first complying with the Interconnect Regulations, 2012 and till such time as the subscription dues of the Petitioner are paid by the Respondent No. 1 and the STBs of the Petitioner are returned in good working condition or cost of such STBs is paid by the Respondent No. 1;

(b) Direct the Respondent(s) to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 4,17,345/- as on 1.4.2018 along with interest at the rate of 18% p. a. for the outstanding subscription charges;

(c) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to return 1066 STBs in good working condition alongwith all accessories or in lieu pay the cost of STBs;

(d) Direct the Respondent(s) to pay pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum;"

9. TSPL had also filed four separate petitions against four other LCOs seeking reliefs of a similar nature. The petition filed by TSPL against the petitioner was taken up by TDSAT, along with the said petitions. It is relevant to note that all the LCOs, who were arrayed as respondents in the said petitions including the petitioner, were represented by the same advocate: Mr Vikram Singh, the learned advocate who appears for the petitioner in these proceedings as well.

10. It was, inter alia, contended on behalf of the petitioner and other LCOs that they were not in a position to return the STBs on their own and TSPL should send its employees to collect the same from various customers. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that TSPL was not the owner of STBs and, therefore, was not entitled to seek return of the same. The petitioner also claimed that it had received the STBs in question as a gift from TSPL.

11. TSPL contended that the return of STBs was vital for its existence as it was impairing its capacity to do business with the other MSOs and LCOs. TSPL also alleged that the STBs were withheld at the instance of rival competitors as the same would be of no use to the petitioner and other LCOs.

12. In view of the above, TSPL sought interim orders for return of the STBs. The petitioner objected to any interim order being passed, inter alia, on the ground that the same would amount to finally deciding TSPL's claim with regard to return of the STBs.

13. TDSAT considered the aforesaid objections and did not pass an interim order for return of the STBs at a hearing held on 11.1.2019 but decided to set down the petitions for final hearing regarding TSPL's claim for return of STBs or a value thereof. TDSAT also directed that oral evidence was not necessary for adjudication of the said claim and permitted the parties to place on record any further material by way of evidence on affidavit. This is one of the petitioner's principal grievances in this petition.

14. It is important to note that the petitioner did not challenge the impugned order dated 11.1.2019 at the material time. On the contrary, the petitioner accepted it; it availed the opportunity of filing evidence by way of an affidavit and participated in the final hearing held before TDSAT. The petitioner has placed no material on record that even remotely suggests that it had participated in the final hearing before TDSAT under protest or reserved its rights to challenge TDSAT's decision to not to record any oral evidence. The petitioner also did not make any application for leading oral evidence indicating its reasons for seeking the same.

15. Having failed to prevail on merits, the petitioner has now filed the present petition seeking to assail the order dated 11.1.2019. This Court had also pointedly asked the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as to why the petitioner had not challenged the order dated 11.1.2019 at the material time; His only response was that the petitioner has challenged the order now and is entitled to do so.

16. It is well settled that remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary remedy and in view of the above, this Court is not persuaded to accept that exercise of any discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted to entertain the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order dated 11.1.2019.

17. The petitioner's contention that TDSAT is bound to record oral evidence to decide cases instituted before it, is unmerited and the decision of TDSAT to not record any oral evidence for deciding the claims regarding the return of STBs cannot be interfered with.

18. Section 16 of the TRAI Act expressly stipulates that TDSAT shall not be bound down by the procedure as laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. It also provides that TDSAT shall have the powers to regulate its own procedure. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 also expressly provides that TDSAT would have the same powers as vested in a Civil Court while trying a suit, including to receive evidence on affidavits. Section 16 of the TRAI Act is set out below:

“16. Procedure and powers of Appellate Tribunal

(1) The Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure.

(2) The Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) subject to the provisions of Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) requisitioning any public record or document or a copy of such record or document, from any office;

(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;

(f) reviewing its decisions;

(g) dismissing an application for default or deciding it, ex parte;

(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it, ex parte; and

(i) any other matter which may be prescribed.

(3) Every proceeding before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)."

19. In Union of India & Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association & Ors., 96 (2002) DLT 726 (SC)=II (2002) SLT 556=II (2002) BC 194 (SC)=(2002) 4 SCC 275, the Supreme Court had observed as under:

“22. ...The reason for establishing Banking Tribunals being to expedite the disposal of the claims by the banks, Parliament thought it proper only to require the principles of natural justice to be the guiding factor for the Tribunals in deciding the applications, as is evident from Section 22 of the Act. While the Tribunal has, no doubt, been given the power of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath, but the Act does not contain any provision which makes it mandatory for the witness to be examined, if such a witness could be produced.”

20. The said observations were made by the Supreme Court in the context of Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which is similarly worded as Section 16 of the TRAI Act. It is not necessary for TDSAT to permit oral evidence in every case. The contention that the petitioner has the right to lead oral evidence and TDSAT is required to record oral evidence is erroneous.

21. This Court is also unable to accept the contention that the impugned order dated 7.5.2019 is an interlocutory order. Mr Singh had referred to the decisions in Mohammad Amin Brothers Ltd. and Ors. v. Dominion of India and Ors., AIR 1950 FC 77; S. Kuppuswami Rao v. The King, AIR (36) 1949 FC 1; and V.C. Shukla v. State Through C.B.I., 1979 (SLT SOFT) 123=AIR 1980 SC 962, in support of his contention. It contended that since the impugned order dated 7.5.2019 did not finally dispose of the petition, the said order ought to be considered as an interlocutory order.

22. There can be no dispute that the impugned order dated 7.5.2019 finally decided TSPL's claim regarding return of the STBs. Insofar as this relief is concerned, the right and liabilities of the parties stood concluded. Thereafter, the petitions filed by TSPL survived only in respect of the claim regarding arrears of subscription charges.

23. In V.C. Shukla v. State (supra), the Supreme Court referred to the decisions of the Federal Court in S. Kuppuswami Rao (supra) and Mohammad Amin Brothers Ltd. (supra) and observed as under:

“31. ....Thus, the Federal Court in its decision seems to have accepted two principles, namely,—

(1) that

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

a final order has to be interpreted in contradistinction to an interlocutory order; and (2) that the test for determining the finality of an order is whether the judgment or order finally disposed of the rights of the parties.” 24. The Court thereafter proceeded to apply the aforesaid principles to determine whether an order framing charges under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under the relevant provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was to be construed as an interlocutory order. In the present case, the impugned order dated 5.7.2019 finally disposed of the claim of TSPL with regard to return of STBs. The decision on the issue of return of STBs also cannot be considered as a supporting matter to the principal dispute. Indisputably, the claim for return of STBs is one of the principal disputes raised in the petition filed by TSPL. This decision is clearly a final order. 25. Thus, the contention that TDSAT has frustrated the petitioner's right of an appeal by deciding the said claim, is also unpersuasive. 26. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition. 27. The petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. The costs shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. 28. The pending applications are also disposed of. Petition dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
24-08-2020 R.K. Dawra Versus Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
18-08-2020 Goods & Service Tax Network Versus Information Commissioner, Cic & Anr High Court of Delhi
17-08-2020 T. Nagaiah Versus M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Pvt Ltd., Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-08-2020 M/s. Siti Cable Network Ltd. & Another Versus Commissioner of Service Tax & Another Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
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
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Versus Konkan Storage Systems Kochi Pvt. Ltd., South End Reclamation, Mastyapuri, Willingdon Island High Court of Kerala
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
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
04-06-2020 Goods & Services Tax Network, New Delhi & Others Versus M/s. Leo Distributors, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
26-05-2020 Tips Industries Ltd. Versus Entertainment Network (Kindia) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 M/s. Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd., (Formerly known as Visteon Powertrain Control Systems India Private Limited) Keelakaranai Village, Malrosapuram Post, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu District V/S The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle - I (3), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 M/s. Asva Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Directorate of Logistics & Another Supreme Court of India
13-03-2020 M/s. Inno-Tech Electronics Systems, Rep. by it's Proprietor – M. Ravichandran Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Mylapore Assessment Circle, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2020 Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited V/S Gemini Power Systems High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru
04-03-2020 In The Matter of: T. Johnson, of St. John Freight Systems Limited (Company under Insolvency) Majority Shareholder & Managing Director (Suspended) Versus St. John Freight Systems Limited Through R. Venkatakrishnan (Resolution Professional of St.John Freight Systems Limited) Partner of RVKS & Associates, Chartered Accountants, R.A. Puram, Chennai & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 Anil Ramdas Pawar V/S Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
03-03-2020 M/s. Vedavaag Systems Ltd. & Another Versus Ricoh India Ltd. High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Prime Cable Network & Another High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Neena Aggarwal Versus Base 39 Mobile Communication & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-02-2020 Presilish Marak Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi, & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
20-02-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Versus M/s. Zylog Systems Limited, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 M/s. Ram E & I Systems Private Limited, Represented by its authorized signatory, R. Sivakumar, Chennai Versus State Tax Officer, Alwarpet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Indo Lloyd Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, Represented by its Director, Sudarshan K. Aithal Versus Income Tax Officer, Nungambakkam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 TEK Systems Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Naveen Kumar Mamidala High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-02-2020 M/s. Kapoor Imaging Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Versus M/s. Kodak (India) Private Limited, [Formerly known as M/s.Kodak Graphic Communication (India) Private Limited] Rep. by its Director, Kalpataru Synergy High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Maximus ARC Ltd. V/S IDS Business Systems Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
30-01-2020 Vishnu Varma Pilli Versus The Union of India, Represented by Communication & Information Technology, Department of Electronics & Information Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
29-01-2020 SBEC Systems (India) Ltd., New Delhi & Others Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
27-01-2020 M/s. Kannileth Cable TV Network, Alleppey Represented by Its Proprietor C.T. Samuel Versus Asianet Satellite Communications Private Limited, Trivandrum, Represented by Its President & Chief Operating Officer Sankara Narayanan High Court of Kerala
27-01-2020 Proteck Circuit & Systems (P) Ltd., Represented by its Manager (Accounts & Finance), Jude Christopher, Shollinganallur Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thiruvanmiyur Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services Versus Siti Cable Network Limited High Court of Delhi
20-01-2020 M/s. Fair Communication & Consultants & Another Versus Surendra Kerdile Supreme Court of India
13-01-2020 Visteon Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Deputy General Manager (Indirect Taxation), T.A. Bhaskaran, Guindy, Chennai Versus The Deputy Commissioner (CT) – IV (FAC), Large Taxpayers Unit, Egmore, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Ajay Kumar Bishnoi, Former Managing Director, M/s. Tecpro Systems Ltd. Versus M/s. Tap Engineering, Rep. by Jawahar High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Greenesol Power Systems Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E., Bangalore-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Bangalore
07-01-2020 Raj Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Mahanagar Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-01-2020 Union of India Versus Reliance Communication Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
07-01-2020 Kamal Nath, Accountant, Divisional Office Tezpur, Sonitpur Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
06-01-2020 Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi Versus Shibu M. Job, Now Working as Director (Postal Life Insurance), Kolkatha & Others High Court of Kerala
03-01-2020 Pacific Pipe Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Others. V/S Bank of India and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad
02-01-2020 Mukul Deka Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-12-2019 M/s. Kapoor Imaging Private Limited, Chennai Versus M/s. Kodak (India) Private Limited, [Formerly known as M/s.Kodak Graphic Communication (India) Private Limited] Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-12-2019 M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Regional Manager, Chennai Versus M/s. Monotech Systems Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-11-2019 Nabasius Warjri Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Communication Department of Post, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
22-11-2019 BGR Energy Systems Limited, Represented by its Assistant Vice President Accounts, Chennai Versus The Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nungambakkam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 Strides Air Systems (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Director D. Anil Prabhu, Thiruvallur Versus The Authorised Officer, The State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2019 Galam Shah Zaman Versus The Director General of Posts, Ministry of Communication & IT, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-11-2019 Ranjit Roy Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Telecom Commission, Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecom, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-11-2019 Biju Borah Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-11-2019 Ranjit Sukla Baidya, Tripura Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Post, Ministry of Communication & Technology, Government of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-11-2019 Victoria Gonmei, Cachar Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary To the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
01-11-2019 Jivan Chandra Handique Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
31-10-2019 Union of India & Others Versus Association of the Employees of Indian Institute of Mass Communication (Regd.) & Others High Court of Delhi
30-10-2019 Suo Moto Proceedings on a Communication Received from The II Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam Regarding Wrong Committal In SC 242/2015 on that Court Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Regional Drug Inspector, Office of The Assistant Drugs Controller, Ernakulam Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
15-10-2019 Sharda Mittal, Barnala Versus Union of India through the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication & I.T. Department of Post, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
26-09-2019 M/s. Thiru Rani Logistics Private Limited represented by C. Karthikeyan Versus M/s. Toshiba JSW Power Systems Private Limited, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2019 Tecpro Systems Limited, Through its authorized representative Mr.D.Venkatasubramaniam Versus Telangana State Power Generation Company Limited, Represented by its Chief Engineer (Generation) Thermal Projects Construction-II High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-09-2019 Monir Uddin Ahmed, Junior Engineer (Civil), Postal Civil Sub Division, (Dimapur), Nagaland Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
18-09-2019 M/s. Hanon Automative Systems India Private Limited, Chengalpattu, Rep. by its Manager - Finance Versus The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2019 Ankur Aeron Versus M/s. Nea-Asp Newzen Systems & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2019 Suhas Janardan Chavan Proprietor of M/s. Suhas Hydro Systems & Others Versus Rajesh Housing Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-08-2019 Electronics & Controls Power Systems Private Limited, Rep. herein by its Managing Director, Rajaram Ramamurthy Versus WeP Peripherals Limited, Rep. herein by its Magaing Director, Ram Agarwal High Court of Karnataka
06-08-2019 Tapas Malakar Versus The Union of India Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Government of India, Central Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Tripura
06-08-2019 Rajendra Pandit Versus Union of India, Through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
11-07-2019 Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Surgitech Systems National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-07-2019 G.V. Reddy Versus Ministry of Communication Employees Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
20-06-2019 PDR Network, LLC, Et Al Versus Carlton & Amp; Harris Chiropractic, Inc.(2019) Supreme Court of United States
18-06-2019 The Principal General Manager (Telecom), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Tiruchirapalli & Another Versus India com limited formerly known as Sesa Seat Information Systems Ltd, Pune & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2019 Bharat Bhogilal Patel Versus Leitz Tooling Systems India Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-05-2019 M/s. Teleecare Network India Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
22-05-2019 Superwave Communication & Infra Solution Private Limited & Another Versus State of West Bengal & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-05-2019 Anuradha Chakraborty Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
02-05-2019 Indian Potash Ltd. & Others Versus Media Contents & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
26-04-2019 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Amit Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-04-2019 M/s. Zylog Systems Limited Versus The Income Tax Officer High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-04-2019 M/s. Southern Cogen Systems Private Limited, Vellachery, Rep. by its Director B.S. Adisesh Versus M/s. Sree Venkateswara Engineering Corporation, Coimbatore, Rep. by its Managing Director, C.N. Sathyamurthy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-04-2019 Bharat Broadband Network Limited Versus United Telecoms Limited Supreme Court of India
04-04-2019 Binud Sonowal Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
03-04-2019 Nayan Talukdar Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
01-04-2019 Lakhidhar Das Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
01-04-2019 Kerlinmon Kharshandi, SP (HQ), Itanagar Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of Post of Revenue Central Board of Excise, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
29-03-2019 Ulo Systems LLC, Noida Versus DCIT (International Taxation) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi
19-03-2019 CE Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Gas Authority of India Ltd. High Court of Delhi
14-03-2019 M/s. Hanon Automotive Systems India Private Limited, (Previously known as M/s. Visteon Automotive Systems India Private Limited) Represented by its Authorised Signatory, B. Swaminathan Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-03-2019 Narapati Kalita Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecom, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
28-02-2019 M/s. Freight Systems (India) Private Limited, Represented by its National Head - Finance & Accounts, P. Vijayakumar, Guindy Versus The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise - Audit II Commissionerate, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2019 Kent RO Systems Ltd & Another Versus Naveen Mahajan & Another High Court of Delhi
20-02-2019 Reliance Communication Limited & Others Versus State Bank of India & Others Supreme Court of India
19-02-2019 Nripen Chandra Nath Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to The Government of India, Department of Post, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
19-02-2019 Dr. Niranjan Das, Retired Sr. Postmaster, Silchar H.O., Dhirenpara Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
15-02-2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Comverse Network Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
31-01-2019 Akhay Tel Communication & Another Versus The State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
29-01-2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -16 Versus UTV Software Communication Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-01-2019 S. Surendran Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
22-01-2019 M/s. Rane NSK Steering Systems (P) Ltd., Rep.by V. Sethuraman Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Now the Assistant Commissioner of CT & CE), Rajakilapakkam & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-01-2019 Pankaj Buragohain & Another Versus The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT Department of Aviation, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
17-01-2019 The General Manager, Network-I, State Bank of India Versus Ram Gopal Musaddi & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata