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



State of Bihar v/s Bhawani Industries


Company & Directors' Information:- BHAWANI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000PB1999PTC022272

Company & Directors' Information:- BIHAR INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29212JH1958PTC004652

Company & Directors' Information:- BIHAR INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29212WB1958PTC023778

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1946PTC000938

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1947PTC000501

Company & Directors' Information:- J INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101OR1960PTC000388

    L.P.A. 33 of 2007

    Decided On, 05 February 2008

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. RAJESH BALIA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH

    For the Appearing Parties: Abhay Shankar Jha, Shailendra Kr. Jha, Sia Ram Sahi, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25th september, 2006 allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner and quashing the impugned orders contained in Annexure-10 series and Annexure-12 forfeiting the earnest money deposited by the petitioner.

(3.) THE Annexure-10 is dated 10th of april, 2006 by which the petitioner was informed that the earnest money deposited by him in respect of three tenders is forfeited and vide Annexure 12 he was informed that due to his failure to execute the agreement in respect of the tenders awarded to him, he is blacklisted.

(4.) THE turn of events, which led to these orders, reveals that on 25th of November, 2005 the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, had issued three tender notices inviting tenders for procurement of galvanized Steel Pipes of different diameters in respect of which the petitioner had submitted his tenders on 27th December, 2005. The petitioner's offer about the rate of supply having been found lowest his tenders, three in number, were accepted on 13th March, 2006 by issuing order for supply of g. S. pipe passed for total quantity under all the three tenders at different places was of 7,569 meters as against BOQ (Bill of Quantity)quantity 12,111 meter in length of 80 mm diameter galvanized steel pipes. This supply was to be made by 31st of March, 2006 with further stipulations that the balance supply may be made as per tender every fortnightly, as per Schedule.

(5.) WITH the tender offer earnest money was deposited at the rate of 2% of the amount of offer.

(6.) THE awardee of tender was further to enter into an agreement within fifteen days of the receiving firm order for supply and deposit 5% of the value of the supply order as security through investments in specified securities deposits. Failure to comply with this term as per the terms and conditions of tender was to entail forfeiture of earnest money.

(7.) IN response to the supply order dated 13th March, 2006 petitioner communicated vide his letter dated 21st March, 2006, annexure-3, in which he raised first objection that delivery period mentioned in the b. O. Q. is 60 days whereas in the supply order deliver period has been reduced. He also raised objections to appointment of inspection agency and also made overture about the steep rise in the rates of iron and steel during the last three months that is to say after submission of the tender offer and expressed his difficulty to accept the supply order unless the inspection agencies is reinstated as per B. O. Q. and delivery schedule should also be as held out. Unless the inspecting Agents are replaced the delivery will be affected and demanded the reinstatement of two conditions as per B. O. Q. so that he can enter into an agreement and start the supply.

(8.) ON 25th of March, 2006 the petitioner's request for adjustment of earnest money towards security money was responded to by the Chief Engineer pointing out that as a special case he is allowed to execute the agreement with Executive Engineer, public Health Division, Patna, by using the bank guarantee already submitted towards security deposit and further required that deposit of separate bank guarantee as security deposit in the supply order must be deposited within 15 days positively. An extension of the time for entering into agreement with Executive Engineer, public Health Division, Patna East was granted up to 27th of March, 2006. The petitioner's request for adding RITHS/dgs and D as third party Inspecting Agency in addition to CROWN AGENTS as mentioned in the supply order was also notified.

(9.) HOWEVER, it appears that the petitioner had not executed the agreement despite aforesaid communications made by the chief Engineer. On 1st of April, 2006 the chief Engineer informed the petitioner that it is a matter of great regret that it has failed in executing agreement till stipulated date and the petitioner's local representative was not in the contact of the awarder of the contract and the petitioner was not even responding to the telephonic queries of the department in this regard. Therefore, the petitioner was informed that the proposed action by the Department to forfeit the earnest money deposited against all three tenders and to blacklist the Company for doing further business in the Government Department. A show cause notice was issued against this proposed action.

(10.) THE petitioner vide his letter dated 3rd of April, 2006 reiterated that it will not be possible for it to proceed any further in this matter unless the above two conditions, mentioned by him in his earlier letter, are reinstated, namely, deviation in the delivery period and inspection by DGS and D/rites, as was mentioned in the B. O. Q. In response to the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special secretary vide his letter dated 4th of april, 2006 stated clearly that on the petitioner's request vide letter dated 21st of march, 2006 a third party Inspecting Agency by DGS and D/rites was allowed and it was also pointed out that so far as the delivery period mentioned in the B. O. Q. was concerned, the same was limited in respect to the supply relating to closing of the financial year but it was made clear that the petitioner can start the supply with quantity as mentioned in his offer for the first fortnight after entering into agreement. It was stated, "if you are still serious about executing the order, you are allowed a time extension for entering into agreement up to 6th of April, 2006 with the Officers as mentioned in all three supply orders. After entering into agreement you can furnish us with your supply schedule in light of your fortnightly offer in tender, which can be considered in view of the urgency of matters. If you failed in entering into agreement by 6th of April, 2006 your earnest money will be forfeited and your firm will be blacklisted without any further communication".

(11.) IN respect of this letter petitioner wrote back on 6th of April, 2006, Annexure-9, which reads as under :

"please refer to our various correspondences mentioned above and your letter No. 6/pipe 2-103/2006-2132 dated 4-4-2006 in which you have mentioned that our earnest money will be forfeited and our firm will be blacklisted without any further communications. In this regard we are astonished by the decision taken by your good self as to how our earnest money may be forfeited or our firm be blacklisted unless and until a purchase order is issued to us exactly as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the B. O. Q. "

(12.) THIS followed by two impugned orders, referred to above, Annexure-10 series and Annexure -12.

(13.) IN the aforesaid circumstances, when the matter came before the learned single judge who considered the placement of order for supply of the quantity of Galvanized steel pipe, noticed above, to be a counter offer in law and not as acceptance of the tender. It was inferred by the learned single judge that the petitioner had made an offer based on a delivery period of 60 days. If that period had to be altered by the State, then negotiation had to start afresh. By issue of the letter dated 13th of March, 2006 was not the acceptance of petitioner's tender but it was a fresh offer made by the Department. In the process the learned single Judge also found the Department responsible for delay for which the petitioner cannot be faulted with and allowed the writ petition with direction to refund the earnest money.

(14.) HAVING considered the contentions and after perusal of the material placed before us, we are unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the learned single Judge.

(15.) IT may be noticed, firstly, that the tender form itself contained a condition no. 10 which envisaged that "the period of supply for full materials as mentioned in b. O. Q. is up to 60 days from the date of written supply order. In case the order for reduced quantity than the quantities mentioned in the B. O. Q. then supply period may be reduced. Delivery schedule should be attached. Failing to comply with this time schedule a penalty @ 1% (one) of agreement value per day (up to a maximum of 10% (ten) may be charged, even supply order may be cancelled, security money may be forfeited and the firm may be blacklisted. Conditional tender shall be liable to outright rejection. "

(16.) THIS condition shows that under the tender 60 days period is not the delivery period in the case of every supply orders but 60 days period is the limit within which the full supply of materials, as mentioned in the bill of Quantity, is directed to be mentioned and the period of each scheduled supply is of shorter duration. It is only if the total supply is reduced then only the total period of 60 days is to be reduced. This is apparent from the fact that the supplies were to be made for every fortnightly. If each supply had to be made within 60 days, there would not be any fortnightly supply schedule.

(17.) THUS, in the first instance inference drawn by the learned single Judge that because the period of supply was reduced as was appearing in the Bill of Quantity, is not supported by the notes on tender itself.

(18.) THIS premise if cannot be sustained, the other premise of the delay on the part of the Department in clearing and accepting the tender automatically falls to the ground.

(19.) AS a matter of fact, as Paragraph-4 of the notes of tenders, makes it absolutely clear that the mode of acceptance of the tender was only by placing the supply order. It reads that "successful tenderer shall have to acknowledge within fifteen days after receiving firm order, they will have to deposit 5% of the value of the supply order as security money in accordance with investment, mentioned therein. " Apparently the offer of the petitioner was accepted as placing the order for supply of the material was the acceptance of tender, which was to be followed with execution of the agreement by the person to whom firm order has been placed along with the security deposit.

(20.) THE correspondence between the petitioner and the Department hereinabove clearly goes to show that the Department has followed the procedure for accepting the tender by placing the firm order requiring the petitioner to make supplies of quantity ordered by 31-3-2006 and to execute an agreement for entering into contract and deposit security amount with further stipulations

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

that he will maintain future schedule of fortnightly supplies. It was the petitioner who had indulged in dilly dallying tactics in execution of the agreement by raising the contention which were non-contentious apparently for reasons that because of rise in steel prices he was not willing to stick to his offer. (21.) THE Department has acted fairly by not cancelling his tender immediately for non-supply of goods and non-execution of agreement by 31/3/2006 but has given him a chance to execute contract even after 31/3/2006. All these goes to show that it was the petitioner and not the Department who was delaying to fulfill his obligation under the agreement Annexure-10 and Annexure 12, having been made after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner and after giving him a chance to execute the contract in terms of the terms and conditions of the tender notice, no error can be found in the action of the appellant. The order under appeal cannot be sustained. (22.) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. Judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed with cost. Cost is quantified to be Rs. 10,000. 00 (Rupees ten thousand). Appeal allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

17-06-2020 D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi Versus Jasmeet Walia & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-06-2020 Khaleed Pasha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries (MSME, Mines & Textile), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-05-2020 Tips Industries Ltd. Versus Entertainment Network (Kindia) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Guru Nanak Industries, Faridabad & Another Versus Amar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Supreme Court of India
20-05-2020 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Nilesh Mahendra Kumar Gandhi & Another Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Check of Accounts) & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-05-2020 Spentex Industries Ltd Versus Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
27-04-2020 Bihar State Electricity Board & Others Versus M/s. Iceberg Industries Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Exide Industries Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 M/s. CJP Industries, Represented by its Managing Partner S. Julius Versus Amitha Bishnoi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 A Marine Industries Munambam, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Proprietor, P.T. Francis & Others Versus UCO Bank, Represented by The Chief Manager, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 S. Vaikundarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMD.2) Department, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 Peps Industries Private Limited Versus Kurlon Limited High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Sai Electromech Industries, A Sole Proprietary Concern rep.by Its Proprietor Umangkumar Joshi Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory S. Mahadevan High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Agrocel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 M/s. Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Ministry of Finance & Others Supreme Court of India
05-03-2020 Electrosteel Steels Limited, Bokaro & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
04-03-2020 M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd., Rajapalaym Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Prime Cable Network & Another High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Bank of India V/S M/s. Brindavan Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Trans Asian Industries Exposition Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd & Another High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 Kamal Encon Industries Limited Through its Authorized Representative Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary World Trade Centre, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
25-02-2020 Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Labour-cum-Specified Authority & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus GPT Steel Industries Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
24-02-2020 S. Suresh Versus The Management Exide Industries Ltd., Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-02-2020 Asian Food Industries Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-02-2020 Clay Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Rajasthan & Others Versus Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited (Institution of Rajasthan Government) Through Managing Director, Ugyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-02-2020 ITC Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Constituted Attorney, V.M. Rajasekharan Versus Shree Devi Match Industries, Gudiyattam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus Gail (India) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 The Superintending Engineer, General Construction, TANTRANSCO Ltd., Tatabad, Coimbatore & Another Versus Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Director of Industries and Commerce, Represented by its Chairman, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 M/s. Tanfac Industries Limited, Rep. by its Secretary G. Balasubramanian Versus M/s. Orichem Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited V/S Laxmi Balaji Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
07-02-2020 M/s. S.K.J. Coke Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Coal India Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 K. Arumugham, Prop. Seetha Industries, Arakandanalu, Villupuram V/S The Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments, Chennai And Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 HDFC Bank Ltd. V/S JNK Electrical Industries Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
06-02-2020 Andhra Bank V/S Suguna Industries Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
05-02-2020 Sheo Shakti Cement Industries, Hazaribagh Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
05-02-2020 D. Vasantha Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Commerce & Industries Department (MSME & Mines), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 P. Krishnan Versus The Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce (Industrial Co-operatives)/(District Registrar of Industrial Co-op), Guindy, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 B.H. Srinivasa Murthy Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-02-2020 M/s. K.T.V. Health Food Private Limited Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu Industries Department Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Punjab National Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-02-2020 Ishwar Oil Industries and Others. V/S The Authorized Officer, Dena Bank and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad
31-01-2020 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax V/S Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Supreme Court of India
29-01-2020 Vimal Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary/Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Authorised Signatory, New Delhi Versus M/s. Durga Bricks Industries, West Bengal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-01-2020 M/s. Elgi Electric & Industries Limited, Rep. by General Manager, Coimbatore Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Trichy Road Assessment Circle, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Century Rayon (A Division of Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Maharashtra Versus The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
27-01-2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Versus Vilson Particle Board Industries Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-01-2020 The Managing Director, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd., (SIPCOT), Egmore, Chennai Versus The Special Tahsildar, SIPCOT Unit Sriprumbudur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 Vanessa Crasto Versus Central Public Information Officer Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd. Central Information Commission
21-01-2020 M/s. Slar Machines & Methods, Rep. by its Partner, V. Saravanabhavan Versus The Branch Manager, National Small Industries Corporation Limited, Hosur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Maa Tarini Industries Ltd. & Another Versus PEC Limited High Court of Delhi
14-01-2020 M/s. Vijeta Projects & Industries Limited Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
10-01-2020 M/s. Singapore Reality Private Limited, Represented by its Director having office at T. Nagar, Chennai also at Siruseri Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Industries Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-01-2020 Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Versus Kosan Industries (P)Ltd. Supreme Court of India
09-01-2020 Chowgule Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Krishna Shrikant Kumbhar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-01-2020 M/s. Maa Bhadrakali Coke Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Dhanbad Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-01-2020 M/s. Refex Industries Limited, Kanchipuram District & Others V/S The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 P. Dhanalakshmi & Another Versus The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 Bengal Hammer Industries P. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
02-01-2020 Himadri Speciality Chemicals and Industries Limited V/S Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
02-01-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Zuari Industries Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
02-01-2020 Allahabad Bank V/S Dobhi Agro Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna
27-12-2019 Shah Metal Industries Versus G.L. Rexroth Industries Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-12-2019 Jindal Stainless Limited Versus Moorgate Industries India Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
20-12-2019 Manjeet Kapoor Proprietor M/s. Manjeet Plastic Industries, New Delhi Versus Tamil Nadu Textbook and Educational Services Corp. Chennai, Tamil Nadu High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-12-2019 M/s. Yogiraj Powertech Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Industries, Energy & Labour Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-12-2019 Rama Krishna & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary Industries and Commerce Mines Department A P Secretariat Velagapudi Guntur District A.P. & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-12-2019 Lokhandwala Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bala K. Ayer National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-12-2019 Sai Electromech Industries Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, Gujarat, India Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 Google India Private Limited Versus M/s. Visakha Industries & Another Supreme Court of India
10-12-2019 M/s. 3F Industries Limited, Rep. by its Vice President (Co-ordination) & the Authorized Representative, AKS Moorthy Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Nagapattinam High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-12-2019 M/s. Sujana Universal Industries Limited Versus State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-12-2019 M/s. Unicorn Industries Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
06-12-2019 M/s. Unicorn Industries Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd & Another Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
03-12-2019 P.G. Amirthalingam, Represented by his Power Agent V. Krishnasamy Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 G. Jaisankar Srinivasan Versus The Tamil Nadu Small Industries, Development Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
28-11-2019 M/s Deep Industries Limited Versus Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
27-11-2019 R. Murugesan Versus M/s. Pidilite Industries Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Nominee, R. Govindan High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2019 Mettur Minerals, Represented by its Partner, Madhappan Versus The Secretary, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2019 M/s. Refex Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Production Manager, A. Ravi Versus The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai Versus Dalmia Cements (Bharath) Ltd., Dalmiapuram, Tiruchirapalli & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 Texel Industries, Rep. by its Sole Proprietrix, Chennai Versus M/s. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, Chennai Exporters Branch, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 M/s. Meenakshi Industries, Rep. by its Partner, Salil Bansal, Villupuram Versus The Assistant Commissioner of (CT) Villpuram – II Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-11-2019 The Management, Tamilnadu Khadi and Village, Industries Board, Represented by its Assistant Director, Chennai Versus The Workman, Represented by the Secretary, Industrial Estate General Workers Union, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-11-2019 M/s. Indu Projects Limited, rep. by its Chief Operating Officer, B.V. Bhaskar Reddy Versus Telangana Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, rep. by its Chairman, Commissionerate of Industries, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
07-11-2019 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Chennai Versus M/s. Hivelm Industries, (Unit of Digvision Electronics), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-11-2019 Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Kuralagam, Chennai Versus The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-11-2019 Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Others V/S Gyan Singh Thakur and Others. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Indore Bench
05-11-2019 Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd V/S Union of India Department of Chemicals And Petrochemicals and Others. Supreme Court of India
05-11-2019 The National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Bhaskar Mendon & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-11-2019 M/s. Sunvik Steels Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Vivek Kejriwal Versus The State of Karnataka, Mines, SSI & Textiles, Department of Industries & Commerce, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
29-10-2019 Paragon Steels Private Limited, Industrial Development Area, Palakkad, Represented by Its Director, Muhammed Musthafa & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
28-10-2019 M.A. Abdul Rasheed Versus The General Manager, District Industries Centre Water Works Compound, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
25-10-2019 M/s. Sangeetha Traders Represented by its Partner Santosh Kumar Lath, Alwarpet Versus T.A. Shanmugham, Proprietor, M/s. Sai Packaging Industries, Ambattur, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras


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