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



Sunil Bhai Sheth v/s M/s. Agricore Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- J M COMMODITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH1979PLC020978

Company & Directors' Information:- AGRICORE COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U51110MH2006PTC161144

Company & Directors' Information:- E-COMMODITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900WB2000PLC091569

Company & Directors' Information:- H J COMMODITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67190MH1992PLC271575

Company & Directors' Information:- K A COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090UP2015PTC074102

Company & Directors' Information:- L N S COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2005PTC101640

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U02005UP2006PTC032576

Company & Directors' Information:- D R COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51225DL2001PTC110868

Company & Directors' Information:- E F COMMODITIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74999WB2006PTC109475

Company & Directors' Information:- L R COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB2007PTC115228

Company & Directors' Information:- A. P. T. COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67190HR2010PTC040771

Company & Directors' Information:- D & B COMMODITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900TN2007PLC063658

Company & Directors' Information:- I P COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65999DL2003PTC121201

Company & Directors' Information:- P R K COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403DL2007PTC168782

Company & Directors' Information:- T R COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U74140HR2011PTC043681

Company & Directors' Information:- D. S. COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MP2007PTC019493

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U51109WB1992PTC054861

Company & Directors' Information:- SUNIL COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51219MH2001PTC130755

Company & Directors' Information:- G S COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15440PN1998PTC114036

Company & Directors' Information:- COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1990PTC056503

Company & Directors' Information:- B R COMMODITIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15146UP1998PLC024093

Company & Directors' Information:- S S R COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52110WB2006PTC110633

Company & Directors' Information:- BHAI & BHAI PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74120WB1963PTC025842

Company & Directors' Information:- M J COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2008PTC180285

Company & Directors' Information:- H & S COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01400HR2015PTC055338

Company & Directors' Information:- S A COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990DL2015PTC281131

Company & Directors' Information:- K M A COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51909WB2002PTC094486

Company & Directors' Information:- SUNIL & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U32109WB1984PTC037810

Company & Directors' Information:- I R COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000TG2011PTC075297

Company & Directors' Information:- A M COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2002PTC113652

Company & Directors' Information:- S C SHETH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1941PTC003306

    Criminal Writ Petition No. 865 of 2019

    Decided On, 08 July 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE

    For the Petitioner: Niranjan Mundargi I/by. Anuj Jhaveri, Advocates. For the Respondent: R1, Hrishikesh Chawan, Advocate, R2, S.R. Agarkar, APP.



Judgment Text

Per Court:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of counsel appearing for the parties petition is being heard finally.

2. This Petition takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 21st January 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Court at Bombay in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1570 of 2018 in Criminal Revision Application, thereby rejecting the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Revision Application.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that, Respondent No. 1 has filed a Criminal Complaint No. 5627/SS/2016 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 23rd Court, Esplanade Court, At Mumbai on 20/12/2016 against the present Petitioner and 8 others, and in said case the trial Court has passed the order of issuance of process. It is alleged that, the Petitioner herein is the Director of one Anil Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Company (for short 'said Company') looking after the day to day affairs and businesses of the said company. It is alleged in the complaint that, the said company for its operational convenience, requested the Respondent No. 1 to advances invoices with respect of sales contracts in the name of the said company and the said company is controlled by their parent company i.e. Adella Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. In pursuance of the aforesaid contracts various invoices were advances from time to time towards the supply of maize thereunder. Complainant has delivered goods in terms of the contracts from time to time and the same has been received without any demur or protest. It is alleged that, as per the terms and conditions of the Contracts there was a credit period of 90 days and post dated Cheques (PDC) were to be offered as security for payments under the invoices advanced and thereafter, PDC's were handed over to the Complainant as security by the said Company. As the Contracts a sum of Rs. 7,94,70,512/- (Rupees Seven Crores Ninety Four Lacs Seventy Thousand Five Hundred and Twelve Only) was due and payable to the Complainant. When complainant have presented the PDC's for payment those were not honoured for payment for reasons of “insufficient fund”.

4. In view of that, Complainant sent Advocates notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') to the said Company and its directors and petitioner is one of the Director of the Company. Thereafter, there were requests made by the said Company not to proceed with proceedings under the NI Act and negotiations were held with Petitioner and other Directors of the said company. Various assurances were given by Petitioner in meetings and requests Complainant to settle the dispute by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and accordingly, an MOU dated 28th July 2016 came to be entered into between the said Company and Complainant. It is the case of the petitioner that, after entering into the MOU, Petitioner vide their Advocates letter dated 19th August 2016 replied to the notice dated 25th July 2016 issued by the Complainant requesting to withdraw the notice. In pursuance of the agreement terms contained the MOU, the said Company issued various cheques towards dues and payments of the Respondent No. 1. Again, when the Respondent No. 1 presented the cheques for payment those were dishonored. On 23.10.2017 learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai vide order below Exh. 1 in C.C. No. 2305627/SS/2016 issued process against the petitioner and other Directors of the said company.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai vide order below Exh. 1 Petitioner approached the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bombay by filing a Misc. Application No. 1570 of 2018 for condonation of delay of 181 days in filing Criminal Revision Appeal.

6. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay by order dated 21st January, 2019 rejected the Misc. Application No. 1570 of 2018 filed by the Petitioner on the ground that, Petitioner is resident of Gujarat is not an excuse for condoning the delay. Hence, this Petition.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that, the Learned Magistrate erred while passing the order of issuance of process as the Petitioner ceased and resigned as a Director from the said Company on 15th June 2016. Petitioner was an “Additional Director” for the said company from 02.09.2013 which can be clearly seen from the extracts of the Registrar of Companies. It is submitted that, a bare perusal of the document would make it clear that with effect from 15.06.2016, the Petitioner ceased to be an “Additional Director”. The said company also provided with an authenticated copy of the Form-DIR 12 on record reporting the cessation of Directorship of the Petitioner along with the receipt of filing the relevant documents with the Registrar of Companies. It is submitted that, the company has provided the list of Directors as per the extracts from the registrar of Companies website which clearly indicates the names of the persons who are presently the Directors of the said Company. It is pertinent to note that the name of the Petitioner does not appear therein and thus no cause of action arises against the Petitioner. It is submitted that, the Accused No. 1 company by their letter dated 16.12.2016 addressed to the 1st Respondent in reply to the Notice dated 25.10.2016, and clearly stated in its Para 6 that “it is to be noted that even otherwise issuance of Notice is wholly non-maintainable as Mr. Sunil Sheth (present Petitioner) and Ms. Anita Lalvai have resigned from the post of Additional Director with effect to 15th June 2016.” Therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ought to have considered the aforesaid reply while passing the order of issuance of process. It is pertinent to note that no cause of action arises against the present Petitioner. Therefore, on this ground, the order of issuance of process be set aside.

8. It is submitted that, it is clear that the Petitioner was in no way involved in any of the transaction referred to in the complaint, and it is no where stated that, he was in charge of the business and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company in terms of the Section 141 of the said Act, nor was there any other allegation made against the Petitioner that he had connived with any other Accused in the matter of issuance of cheque. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate failed to consider that the Complainant themselves has mentioned in last 2 lines of Para 2 of the Complaint that “the Accused No. 6 & 8 are also responsible for the day of day activities and business affairs of the Accused No. 1” even after the aforesaid the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued process against the present Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner at the time when the said cheque was dishonoured, was not a Additional Director in the said Company and thus the present Petitioner was not incharge of the day to day affairs of the said Company, therefore, no cause of action would reflect on him. On this ground also, the said order of issuance of process be set aside. It is submitted that, reading the averments in the complaint in their entirety without adding or subtracting anything there from, no offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for Short NI Act) is made out as against the Petitioner.

9. It is submitted that, there is not a single averment or a statement to show that the Petitioner was in-charge of the day-today conduct and business affairs of the said Company. The Petitioner states that on this very ground the order issuing process be set aside. It is submitted that, Petitioner has neither drawn nor issued the cheque in question and therefore, the complaint against the Petitioner was not maintainable. The complainant has not specified or elaborated the role of the petitioner in conduct of the business of the Company. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of the aforesaid contentions placed reliance on the following decisions, in the case of Subramnium Sethuraman Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr (2004 AIR SCW 5326), Harshendra Kumar D. Versus Rebatilata Koley Etc (2011 (1) UC 478)and also in the case of Indian Bank Association and Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors (2014 DGLS 389).

10. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for second Respondent has tendered across the bar copy for the Criminal Application for condonation of delay in filing the Revision by the present petitioner, same is taken on record. It is submitted that, there was delay of 181 days filing the said Revision which was not explained. There was considerable delay of 181 days in filing the Revision and therefore, Sessions Court has rightly rejected application for condonation of delay. It is submitted that, complaints / cases filing under Section 138 of the NI Act are required to be herd expeditiously and endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing the complaint. The learned counsel invites attention of this Court to the impugned order and submits that, the Petitioner herein has admittedly received the summons of the proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 17th February 2018. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate perused the complaint, verification statement and documents on record and thereafter has issued the process after recording prima facie satisfaction. It is submitted that, the order of issuance of process has been passed on 23rd October 2017 and the petitioner received the summons on 17th February 2018 however, he filed Revision with application for condonation of delay before the Sessions Court in the month of July 2018. Learned counsel submits that the defence of the accused can be considered only during trial and contention of the petitioner that he tendered the resignation from the post of Director has been accepted or admitted by the complainant. Upon production of the certified cop of the form No. 32, the accused will have to prove the truthfulness of the contents of the certified copy and the factum of his resignation, during the trial before the Trial Court. Therefore, learned counsel prays that petition may be rejected.

11. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the counsel appearing for the Petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent i.e. Original Complainant. With their able assistance perused the grounds taken in the Petition, annexures thereto and also the order passed by the Sessions Court as well as the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issuing the process. In the present Petition an exception is taken to the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the Sessions Court thereby rejecting the Application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Revision application. Upon perusal of the order passed by the Sessions Court, it appears that, the Sessions Court has not appreciated the contentions on merits and rejected the application filed by the Petitioner on the ground of delay.

It appears that, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, issued the process on 23.10.2017 and the Petitioner received the summons on 17.02.2018. Upon careful perusal of the averments in the application for condonation of delay, there is no sufficient cause disclosed in the said application as to why the Petitioner could not file Revision within time from the date of receipt of summons i.e. 17.02.2018 till July 2018. There is no explanation except that, the petitioner is residing at Ahmedabad. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the second Respondent that, cases under Section 138 of the NI Act are required to be tried summarily and trial is required to be conducted as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of complaint. It would be apt to reproduce herein below Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which reads as follows:

1[143. Power of Court to try cases summarily.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences under this Chapter shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trials:

Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and an amount of fine exceeding five thousand rupees:

Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial under this section, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the said Code.

(2) The trial of a case under this section shall, so far as practicable, consistently with the interests of justice, be continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing.

(3) Every trial under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint.

12. The aforesaid provision would make it abundantly clear that the legislature intented to expedite the trial of the cases arising out of dishonor of cheque for “insufficiency of funds” in the account, and conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. In the present case the Petitioner belatedly filed the Revision after six months from the date of issuance of process by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. As already observed, there was no sufficient cause disclosed before the Sessions Court to condone the delay and therefore, the Sessions Court has rightly rejected the Application of the Petitioner for condonation of delay. As already observed the order of issuance

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of process is dated 23.10.2017 and the petitioner has received the summons on 17.02.2018. Belated attempt of the Petitioner to invoke Revisional jurisdiction cannot be countenanced. learned counsel for 1st respondent is right in his submission that, showing an indulgence and entertaining the proceedings, which are filed after six months of issuance of process, would amount to defeating the legislative intent reflected in Section 143 of the NI Act, in as much as, the trial shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of the filing of the Complaint. IN the case of Indian Bank Association and Others (Supra), while issuing direction, for appropriately dealing with the cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 21(5) directed as under: (5) The Court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chef, cross-examination and reexamination of the complainant must be conducted within the three months of assigning the case. The Court has option of accepting affidavits of the witnesses, instead of examining them in Court. Witnesses in the complaint and accused must be available for cross-examination as and when there is direction to this effect by the Court. 13. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Petition. The Petitioner will have an opportunity to put forth his contention on merits before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. No case is made out to cause interference in the impugned orders. 14. The Writ Petition stands rejected accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

11-09-2020 Kishan Mukesh Bhai Dhandhukiya Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-08-2020 B. Sunil Kumar & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Rep. by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
14-08-2020 Sunil Chillalshetti & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Medical Education Department, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-08-2020 Sunil Agrawal Versus Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Through its Chairman, Naya Raipur (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
11-08-2020 Jai Bhagwan @ Bhedha Bhai Versus N.C.B. (Narcotics Control Bureau) High Court of Delhi
23-07-2020 Sunil N. Godhwani Versus State High Court of Delhi
23-07-2020 Sunil Rathee & Others Versus The State of Haryana & Others Supreme Court of India
14-07-2020 Nitesh Amrut Bhai Patel & Another Versus Narcotic Control Bureau & Another High Court of Delhi
13-07-2020 M/s. Vismaya Advertising, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Manager Sunil S. Menon & Another Versus The Intelligence Officer (IB), Department of Commercial Taxes, Mattancherry at Aluva & Others High Court of Kerala
07-07-2020 Sunil Yadavrao Beedkar Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
07-07-2020 Kamla Nehru Educational Society Thru Secy. Shri Sunil Dev & Others Versus State of U.P. Thru Secretary Housing & Urban Planning & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
03-07-2020 K.J. Sunil Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
01-07-2020 Ishwar Chander & Another Versus Sunil Saran High Court of Punjab and Haryana
01-07-2020 Sree Gokula Chit & Finance Co (Pvt.) Ltd Versus Sunil Sabu High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Sunil Raj, Corrected As Susil Raj (The Name of the Petitioner typed as “Sunil Raj” in the cause title of the Memorandum of Crl.M.C., Synopsis, Index and petition for Interim Direction and on The Docket is corrected as “Susil Raj” as per order dated 12.11.2019 in CRL.M.A.No.1/2019 in CRL.M.C.No.1797/2017.) Versus Gopan & Another High Court of Kerala
25-06-2020 Sunil @ Sunil Ashok Gadivaddar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
04-06-2020 Sunil Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-05-2020 Desai vipul bhai mafa bhai Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
28-05-2020 Patel Imtiyaz bhai Ibrahim bhai Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-05-2020 Sunil Kumar Aledia Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
15-05-2020 M/s S.M.C Power Generation Ltd, Orissa Versus Dilip Bhai Patel High Court of Chhattisgarh
01-05-2020 Mahesh Bhai Reva Bhai Pandya Versus State of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-03-2020 M/s. Omce Jordan Versus The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras Liquidator of M/s.Rayalaseema Commodities Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-03-2020 K.J. Samson, Managing Director, Inditrade Derivatives & Commodities Ltd, Kochi Versus T.M. Nazeer & Another High Court of Kerala
13-03-2020 M/s. Fossil India Private Limited, Represented by Sunil Prabhakaran Authorised Signatory Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Audit-5.4), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
12-03-2020 Sunil Kumar Mishra Versus State High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 Aruna Oswal Versus Gen Y Commodities Private Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
17-02-2020 Sunil Gandhi & Another V/S A.N. Buildwell Private Limited High Court of Delhi
13-02-2020 Rambabu Singh Thakur Versus Sunil Arora & Others Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 M/s. Vadim Infrastructure Private Limited. (formerly M/s.VolTech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director R. Rajamanickam Versus M/s. Sunil HiTech Engineers Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Versus State of Kerala Reptd. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
06-02-2020 Sunil Soni & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
05-02-2020 Nandagopal Chetty & Another Versus Sunil & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 Sunil Kumar, Director, Zephyr Entrance Coaching Centre, Kunnumpuram Versus C.S. Abdul Jabbar Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
30-01-2020 Sunil Polist Versus CPIO /Manager (CRM)/EDMS Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Information Commission
21-01-2020 Sunil @ Sumit Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-01-2020 R.C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sunil Bansal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-01-2020 Raj Commodities V/S Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Jaipur-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-01-2020 Har Sarup Bhasin Versus M/s. Origo Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
07-01-2020 Liberty Garden CHS Ltd., Through its authorized representative Prashant Shikarkhane & Another Versus M/s. K.T. Group, A Registered Partnership Firm of Dhairya Sheth & Mr. Sandeep Sheth & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-12-2019 B. Sunil Baliga Versus Sudir High Court of Karnataka
17-12-2019 Shweta @ Sakshi Versus Sunil High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
12-12-2019 S. Sudarshan Versus G.M. Sunil Kumar High Court of Karnataka
11-12-2019 Sunil Bharti Mittal & Others Versus N. Naresh Kumar & Another High Court of Karnataka
11-12-2019 Sunil Pundalik Admile Versus Madhukar Tukaram Kshirsagar In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
06-12-2019 Dharmendra Prasad & Others Versus Sunil Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
27-11-2019 Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement Versus Sunil Godhwani High Court of Delhi
25-11-2019 Kapilaben & Others Versus Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth Through POA Gopalbhai Madhusudan Patel & Others Supreme Court of India
22-11-2019 Pooja Timir Sheth Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
21-11-2019 Sunil Versus Neethu High Court of Kerala
18-11-2019 Taher Bhai Sheikh Abbas Bhai Deesawala & Others Versus Nafisa Ismail Dhariwala & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2019 Soma Barman Nee Datta Versus Sunil Chandra Podder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-11-2019 Laxmi Agro Impex India Versus M/s Ladli India Commodities High Court of Delhi
07-11-2019 Pumarth Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Commodity & Derivatives Exchange Ltd. SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
04-11-2019 Sunil Bhai Sheth Versus M/s. Agricore Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
15-10-2019 Miraj Medical Centre Miraj through Medical Superintendent & Others Versus Sunil Tukaram Danane & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-09-2019 P.S. Abhiram Sunil Versus Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science, Represented By Its Registrar, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
26-09-2019 M/s. Indus Cityscapes Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Director Ajay Lunawath, Chennai Versus M/s. Karismaa Foundations Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director Rakesh P Sheth High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-09-2019 Sunil Versus State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-09-2019 Sharmila Mukhopadhyay Versus Sunil Kanti Barua, Rep by his Constituted Attorney - Prasanta Bose & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-09-2019 Sunil Eknath Bajaj & Others Versus Maheshwari Seva Trust & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-09-2019 Sunil Kumar Agarwal Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-09-2019 Arvind V. Sheth & Another Versus Mahendra Mohanlal Jain High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-09-2019 M/s. Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Kanthibai Rajendra Sheth Versus M/s. E.C. Bose & Company Private Limited, Kolkata & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2019 M/s. Balaji Ginning Factory, through Its Proprietor – Sunil Chiranjilal Bajaj Versus Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-08-2019 M/s. Haskoning B.V. Dutch Consulting Engineers & Architects rep. by its Power of Attorney holder Sunil Kumar Versus M/s. Kamarajar Port Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-08-2019 Pawan Kumar Versus Sunil Kumar High Court of Punjab and Haryana
02-08-2019 M/s. Triputi Commodities Versus Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
01-08-2019 Rohan Sunil Jain (Chavre) & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : the Police Sub-Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
23-07-2019 Reliance Commodities Ltd. Versus National Commodity & Derivatives Exchange Ltd. Ackruti Corporate Park, Mumbai & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-07-2019 Sunil Muneshwar Yadav & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
17-07-2019 Ramanna Versus K.S. Sunil Gupta & Others High Court of Karnataka
16-07-2019 Lakhi Debi Jaiswal Versus Sunil Kumar Shaw West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
09-07-2019 Sunil Barve Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
08-07-2019 State Versus Khimji Bhai Jadeja High Court of Delhi
04-07-2019 Sunil Appayya Matapathi Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
03-07-2019 Rajeshwari Versus Sunil & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
03-07-2019 Haresh Kumar Laxman Bhai & Co. & Others Versus Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Another High Court of Delhi
02-07-2019 Sunil Vasudeva & Others Versus Sundar Gupta & Others Supreme Court of India
02-07-2019 Sunil Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
28-06-2019 Sunil Kumar Patel Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-06-2019 Sunil Kumar Santwani Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-06-2019 Transcon-Sheth Creators Private Limited Versus State of Maharashtra Through Government Pleader & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-06-2019 For the Petitioner: Sarvesh Kumar Singh, A.A.G., Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ravi Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G, Raghwanand, GA. High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-06-2019 State Bank of India, West Bengal Versus Sunil Kumar Maity & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-06-2019 M/s. Mahesh Timber Trading Company, Represented by its Managing Partner Mavji Bhai M Patel, Kollathur Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Under Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Krichi Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-06-2019 Sunil Ratnaparkhi & Another Versus Official Liquidator of M/a Satwik Electric Controls Pvt Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-06-2019 Rakesh P Sheth Versus The Income Tax Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Income - Tax & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2019 Sunil Bansal Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
15-05-2019 Jyoti Taide Versus Sunil Dambare & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
10-05-2019 PT Purnanand Tiwari Intermediate College & Others Versus Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
09-05-2019 C. Mahendra International Ltd Versus Naren Sheth & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
09-05-2019 Rachana Madan & Another Versus Sunil Madan High Court of Delhi
07-05-2019 Sunil Kumar Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court & Another High Court of Delhi
03-05-2019 Ratnem Vishnu Kamat @ Rukmabai Vishnu Kamat & Another Versus Roopali Sunil Lotlikar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
01-05-2019 In the matter of: JK Commodities & Services Private Limited & Another National Company Law Tribunal Ahmedabad
25-04-2019 Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Sunil Ratnayake Versus Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General's Department, Colombo Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
25-04-2019 Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Sunil Ratnayake Versus Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General's Department, Colombo 12 Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
25-04-2019 Rakesh P. Sheth Versus M/s Indus Cityscapes and Constructions Pvt Ltd., Rep by its Director Ajay Lunawat Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
25-04-2019 Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Sunil Ratnayake Versus Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General's Department, Colombo 12 Supreme Court of Sri Lanka