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



The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune - III v/s B.J. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- B S AND SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92419MH1946PTC004912

Company & Directors' Information:- CONSTRUCTION INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201GJ1979PTC003375

Company & Directors' Information:- D TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403MH2015PTC268305

Company & Directors' Information:- N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2006PTC146888

Company & Directors' Information:- B S TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28990DL2013PTC262594

Company & Directors' Information:- A M CONSTRUCTION P LTD. [Active] CIN = U99999WB1990PTC050255

Company & Directors' Information:- S E CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202WB1988PTC044630

Company & Directors' Information:- J CONSTRUCTION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TZ2012PTC018250

Company & Directors' Information:- P V CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100DL1998PTC097116

Company & Directors' Information:- B. CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U00894BR1989PTC003616

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICE CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U93090KL1946PLC001075

Company & Directors' Information:- E-SERVICE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U32104MP2005PTC017724

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC164939

    Central Excise Appeal No. 186 of 2017

    Decided On, 15 March 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. KARNIK

    For the Appellant: Swapnil Bangur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Prakash Shah a/w Jas Sanghavi I/b PDS Legal, Advocates.



Judgment Text


M.S. Karnik, J.

1. The present Appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune III under the provisions of Section 35G( 1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as amended by the Finance Act, 2003. The Appeal is filed against the order dated 13/06/2013 passed by Central Excise and Central Excise Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT' for short) West Zone Bench, Mumbai. The CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. The present Appeal is filed on the following question of law amongst others relevant for deciding this Appeal.

(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the construction of Shiv Chatrapati Sports Complex is commercial or industrial construction within the meaning of Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act?

The brief facts of the case are as under:

2. It is the appellant's case that the respondent is engaged in providing taxable services, including 'commercial or industrial construction services' as defined under Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994. During the course of verification of service tax payment, it was noticed that the respondent had provided services to the Directorate of Exports and Huge Services to the Government of Maharashtra for construction of new facilities and upgradation of the existing facilities at Shiv Chatrapati Sports Complex situated at Mhalunge-Balewadi, Pune. It was observed that the services provided by the respondent at the aforesaid place are covered under the category of 'commercial or industrial construction services' as the said stadium/sports complex is used for commercial purposes. The respondent did not pay service tax though they are liable.

3. A show cause notice dated 22/03/2009 was issued to the respondent demanding service tax of Rs.10,21,11,459/for the period from 200607 to 200809 along with interest. It also proposed to impose penalty and interest on the said evaded amount of service tax. This show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Pune III who vide his order in original dated 15/09/2011, confirmed the demand, levied interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act and also imposed penalty equal to the service tax evaded by the respondent under Section 78 of the Finance Act. The respondent was informed that if the payment is made within 30 days of the communication of the order, the penalty shall be reduced by 25%.

4. Against the order in original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 15/09/2011, the respondent preferred an Appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT was allowed the Appeal of the respondent holding that the construction is noncommercial and therefore no service tax is payable. According to CESTAT the construction is not 'commercial or industrial construction services' within the meaning of the Act.

5. Learned Counsel for the Revenue would urge that the Tribunal committed an error in not appreciating the fact that 1/3rd of the area of the stadium is utilized for commercial purpose, other than sports, and hence, the construction comes within the scope of 'commercial and industrial construction'. Learned Counsel urged that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the respondent has constructed a sports stadium complex for the Government of Maharashtra not on charitable basis but for commercial gains and therefore, the Tribunal is not at all justified in holding that the construction is not a commercial construction.

6. Learned Counsel would submit that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the contract between the respondent and the Government of Maharashtra dated 10/01/2017, specially paragraph 27(1) which would clearly go to show that the construction being a sports stadium, VAT and Service Tax is payable. Learned Counsel would thereby urge that the contract agreement itself is a clear pointer to the construction being commercial construction rendering the respondent liable to pay VAT and Service Tax. Learned Counsel for the appellant would next submit that the findings of the CESTAT are not sustainable in the teeth of the clarifications of the Board dated 12/05/2008 and 05/09/2008 on the queries raised by the Competent Authority of Government of Maharashtra, regarding leviability of service tax on the construction services availed for construction of sports stadium. In his submission, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the materials brought on record indicating various rates specified for the user of different facilities in the sports complex. In his submission, the record clearly reveals that the construction is a commercial construction for which the appellant is justified in levying service tax.

7. Learned Counsel invited our attention to the findings given in the adjudication order by the adjudicating authority which clearly records that the rates are fixed for use of the stadium. He points out that in the rates quoted, there is a column for usage for commercial purposes which clearly reveals that the stadium is being allowed to be used for commercial purposes and separate rates are fixed for such usage. Learned Counsel by placing reliance on the Government Resolution which provides that the Committee shall be competent to use the area to the extent of 1/3rd of the total area for commercial purpose, that is to say, for private purpose, would submit that the stadium is used for commercial purpose and therefore the construction is to be considered as commercial construction.

8. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand invited our attention to the order passed by the CESTAT and the findings recorded therein. Learned Counsel made submissions in support of the impugned order. He invited our attention to the definition of the term 'commercial or industrial construction services' is defined under Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994. In his submission, the construction of Shiv Chhatrapati Sports Complex cannot be regarded as 'commercial or industrial construction' with the meaning of the definition under Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994. Learned Counsel would submit that the plot of land on which the stadium is constructed is owned by the Government of Maharashtra. The record would indicate that the said plot is for public welfare use and not for residential or commercial purpose. Learned Counsel invited our attention to the affidavit dated 09/09/2008 of the Director, Directorate of Sports and Youth Services, Pune where he deposed about holding of 3rd Commonwealth Youth Games 2008 and also a declaration that the stadium will be continued to be used for noncommercial purposes even after the Commonwealth Youth Games are over. Learned Counsel also relied on the Circular issued by the Board dated 17/09/2004 wherein it is clarified as under:

“13.2 The leviability of service tax would depend primarily upon whether the building or civil structure is “used, or to be used” for commerce or industry. The information about this has to be gathered from the approved plan of the building or civil construction. Such constructions which are for the use of organizations or institutions being established solely for educational, religious, charitable, health, sanitation or philanthropic purposes and not for the purposes of profit are not taxable, being noncommercial in nature. Generally, government buildings or civil constructions are used for residential, office purposes or for providing civil amenities. Thus, normally government constructions would not be taxable. However, if such constructions are for commercial purposes like local government bodies getting shops constructed for letting them out, such activity would be commercial and builders would be subjected to service tax.”

9. Learned Counsel also relied on the Circular dated 10/02/2012 whereunder following clarifications are issued.

“2.4 Conversion Model: Conversion of any hitherto untaxed constructions/complex or part thereof into a building or civil structure to be used for commerce or industry, after lapse of a period of time.

Clarification : Mere change in use of the building does not involve any taxable service, unless conversion falls within the meaning of commercial or industrial construction service.”

10. Learned Counsel would submit that even the records maintained by the local authorities would reveal that the stadium is not used for commercial purposes. Learned Counsel would submit that it is only when sports stadium is to be used primarily for the purpose of commercial or industrial use, it is only then the question of payment of service tax would arise.

11. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have gone through the Petition and the annextures.

12. To appreciate the controversy involved, it is material to refer to the definition of the term 'commercial or industrial construction service' as defined under Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994 which reads thus :

(25b) “commercial or industrial construction service” means –

a) construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or

(b) construction of pipeline or conduit; or

(c) completion and finishing services such as glazing, plastering, painting, floor, and wall tiling, wall covering and wall papering, wood and metal joinery and carpentry, fencing and railing, construction of swimming pools, acoustic applications or fittings and other similar services, in relation to building or civil structure; or

(d) repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services in relation to, building or civil structure, pipeline or conduit,

which is –

i) used, or to be used, primarily for ; or

ii) occupied, or to be occupied, primarily with ; or

iii) engaged, or to be engaged, primarily in, commerce or industry, or work intended for commerce or industry, but does not include such services provided in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams;

13. There is no dispute that the plot of land on which the stadium is constructed is owned by Government of Maharashtra. The record maintained by the local authorities would indicate that the plot is for public welfare use and not for residential or commercial purpose. The question that arises for consideration is whether, user of the stadium area to the extent of 1/3 rd of the total area for commercial purpose would tantamount to 'commercial or industrial construction service' as defined by Section 65 (25)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. It is not even the case of the appellant that the stadium is exclusively used for commercial purpose. Relying on materials which indicate that 1/3rd of the area of the stadium can be utilized for commercial purpose, other than sports, the appellant wants us to arrive at a conclusion that construction is commercial construction service as defined under Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994. No doubt, various rates are specified for different facilities in the sports complex. As observed earlier, it is not even the case of the appellant that sports complex is exclusively or even primarily used for commercial purpose.

14. It may be that various rates are specified for different facilities in the sports complex. This by itself is not sufficient to establish that the sports complex is exclusively or primarily used for commercial purpose. The agreement itself permits the Committee to use the area to the extent of 1/3rd of the total area for commercial purpose.

15. Let us consider the definition of the term 'commercial or industrial construction service' which is extracted hereinbefore. Clauses (a) to (d) of the definition provides for various types of construction and allied works including glazing, plastering, painting etc. and also repair, alteration, renovation etc on which service tax can be levied. This construction of the allied works ipso facto does not attract the levy of the service tax as further part of the definition would indicate. The said construction, in order to attract service tax, will also have to satisfy the conditions laid down by subsequent part of the definition i.e. i) used, or to be used, primarily for ; or

ii) occupied, or to be occupied, primarily with ; or

iii) engaged, or to be engaged, primarily in, commerce or industry, or work intended for commerce or industry........ (emphasis supplied by us)

16. The language employed in the definition clause is clear and unambiguous. The plain meaning as can be understood from the definition clause, more particularly, the clarification contained in clauses (i), (ii), (iii) is that the construction ipso facto is not leviable to service tax, but it is only when it is used, or to be used, primarily for “commerce” or “industry” or work intended for “commerce” or “industry” that service tax can be levied. Thus, it is only that construction which is to be used or primarily to be used for commerce that is subject to levy of service tax.

17. In the present facts, we find that dominant user of the sports complex is noncommercial. The definition uses the words “used or to be used primarily for commerce or industry” clearly indicating that the user is to be exclusively for commercial purpose or at least it must be primarily for commercial purpose. The definition leaves us in no manner of doubt that if the predominant user of the “sports stadium” is not commercial, then the same cannot be subjected to levy o

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

f service tax. Thus, in the facts of the present case, though an area to the extent of 1/3rd is used for commercial purpose prescribing separate rates for such user, this by itself is not sufficient to attract service tax. 18. Even the circulars issued by the Board dated 17/09/2004 and 10/02/2012 would indicate that only if such constructions are for commercial purposes, like, local government bodies constructing shops for letting them out, such activities would be commercial and builders would be subjected to service tax. The Director of Sports and Youth Services, Pune in his Affidavit filed before the authorities on earlier occasion has deposed that the stadium will be continued to be used for the noncommercial purposes even after the Commonwealth Youth Games, 2008 are over. The materials on record do not satisfy the test that the stadium is used or used primarily for commercial purpose. It is the stand of the respondent that while pursuing their object of popularizing sports by selecting best available means, they incidentally charge for the usage and the said revenue will not convert the activities into commercial use. The stand is reasonable. 19. We therefore do not find this to be a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the CESTAT in exercise of our further Appellate jurisdiction. The order under challenge is neither perverse nor vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. 20. The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

31-07-2020 M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd., Cement Grinding Unit, Kancheepuram Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (South Zonal Bench), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2020 The Karassery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kozhikode, Represented by Its General Manager Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Co-Operative Societies, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
27-07-2020 M/s. Sainath Security Force & Man Power Service, Represented by its Proprietor B.S. Mannur Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Under Secretary, Bangaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
16-07-2020 Cheriyan Mathew, Member, The Kanakkary Service Cooperative Bank Limited & Others Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Kottayam & Another High Court of Kerala
14-07-2020 Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering & Technology & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
14-07-2020 M/s. Sanwaliya Tractor Sales & Service, Rajasthan & Others Versus Bhagwati Devi Bhatt & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-07-2020 Prabhat Ranjan Deo Versus Union Public Service Commission & Others High Court of Delhi
19-06-2020 The Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur & Another Versus Dr. Subroto Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-06-2020 Sri Bhagavathy Dyes & Chemicals, Kochi, Represented by Its Proprietor, B. Ravindranath Versus Alleppey Parcel Service, Alappuzha, Represented by T.T. Kuruvila, Proprietor & Others High Court of Kerala
18-06-2020 M/s. Group 5 Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-06-2020 Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Versus State by Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
04-06-2020 The Karnataka Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary Versus Dr. S.S. Madhukeshwara & Another High Court of Karnataka
02-06-2020 The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Another Versus Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-06-2020 Pappu Ram Jat Versus Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
26-05-2020 O.R. Rahul & Others Versus Indian Institute of Space Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
22-05-2020 Jai Pal & Others Versus Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 Dhiraj Milind Dhurve Versus Union Public Service Commission & Another High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service, Patna Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-05-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Ernakulam Versus M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Kochi Refinery, Ambalamugal, Represented by The Chief Finance Manager High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 M.G. Narasimha Rao Versus The Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement, Roving Squad, Chengalpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Kukreja Construction Co. & Another Versus Surendra Narvekar & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-05-2020 Score Information Technology Ltd. Versus Central Organisation, Ex-Serviceman Contributory Health Scheme High Court of Delhi
11-05-2020 Posco Engineering & Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sinew Developers Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
08-05-2020 Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited Versus The Board of Trustees For The Port of Kolkata & Another Supreme Court of India
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Appellate Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Labour And Two Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-04-2020 Quippo Construction Equipment Limited Versus Janardan Nirman Pvt. Limited Supreme Court of India
21-04-2020 Mahadeo Construction Co. at Chhatarpur, Palamau Through its partner Anil Kumar Singh Versus The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
23-03-2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others Versus Megha Sharma & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-03-2020 M/s. Shyamsingh Devisingh Thakur & Construction Company & Another Versus Municipal Council, Mohpa through its Chief Officer & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
19-03-2020 Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Others Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
18-03-2020 M/s. COPCO Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director K. George Versus Southern Railway, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-03-2020 P.B. Biju Versus The Managing Committee of The Vayyattupuzha Service Co-Operative Bank, Ltd No. Q 354, Represented by Its President, Pathanamthitta District & Others High Court of Kerala
16-03-2020 M/s. Telco Construction Equipment Company Ltd. & Another Versus Kongara Suryanarayana & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Jayakumar Assistant Professor-Cum-Assistant Director, Centre For Social Exclusion & Inclusion, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus Dr. Jyothi S. Nair & Others High Court of Kerala
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Sankar Prasad Bose & Another Versus M/s. Shitala Construction Rep. by Ajit Panja & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-03-2020 M/S. Mayur Construction Company, Maharshtra & Others Versus Hemlata Bakane & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-03-2020 Dr.(Mrs) Sania Akhtar, Working as Principal Director (Senior Principal Scientist), Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology SARP, Bangalore Versus The Director General, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers, Guindy, Chennai & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
05-03-2020 Dinesh Kumar Rao Versus G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
05-03-2020 BSP Infrastructure & Construction Ltd. (BICL) & Others Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Limited V/S Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit-1 Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Shri Chand Construction & Apartments Private Limited & Another Versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. High Court of Delhi
04-03-2020 Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Versus NHPC Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
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
04-03-2020 S. Aruputharaj Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Education, Science & Technology, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Md. Waheed V/S The Telangana State Public Service Commission In The High Court Of State Of Telangana
03-03-2020 Bhanot House Flat Owners/Occupants Association Versus Bhanot Construction & Housing Limited Through Its Directors Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
28-02-2020 M/s. Padmavathi Hospitality & Facilities Management Services, Rep. by its Partner & Authorized Representative Pradeep Kanumuri & Another V/S The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Cauvery Construction, West Bengal & Another Versus Subrata Samanta & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-02-2020 M/s. Jain Housing and Construction Ltd Versus Pushpa Roche & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 N.A. Eswaramurthi Versus Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep.by its Member Secretary, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 J. Anbazhagan Versus The Chairman The Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram V/S P. Priya And Others High Court of Kerala
25-02-2020 Dr. Utpal KantiMazumdar Versus Millennium India Construction, Rep. by its Partners & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-02-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit-I & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2020 P.H. Thajudeen Versus Secretary, Pathanamthitta Service Co-op: Bank Ltd., Near Govt. Hospital, Pathanamthitta & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
21-02-2020 CP Cell, Directorate General Ordnance Service, Informant Master General of Ordnance Service, CP Cell/OS Dte, New Delhi V/S M/s AVR Enterprises, Kanpur & Another Competition Commission of India
21-02-2020 Mahindra Consulting Engineers Ltd., Represented by its General Manager, S. Balaji V/S Prabhash Kumar, M/s. Prasambi Design & Construction Pvt Ltd., Patna & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 M/s. Millions Fashion, Chennai Versus The Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 Suvayan Chakraborty, Prop., King Construction Versus Subhendu Bikash Das West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
19-02-2020 M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Rep. by its Chairman, Er.A. Mohamed Yunus, Trichy & Others Versus The Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Guindy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Vidya Devarajan & Another Versus The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Nileshbhai Arvindbhai Gandhi, Director, Cube Construction Engineering Limited Versus State of Gujarat & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
14-02-2020 A. Babu Prasanth V/S The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Toad, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 Chandigarh Construction Company Private Limited Versus State of Punjab & Another Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 M/s. Z. Engineers Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Another V/S Bipin Bihari Behera And Others Supreme Court of India
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
14-02-2020 The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Anna University Campus, Chennai Versus Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Namakkal & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhavnagar Versus M/s. Pipavav Shipyard Limited (100 Percent Eou) High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
13-02-2020 The Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by The Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus P.K. Leelamani & Others High Court of Kerala
13-02-2020 M/s. High End Quality Construction (P) Ltd., PWD & CPWD Contractors rep by its Managing Director T. Sudha Versus The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Daniel Oommen Versus National Institute of Technology, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
13-02-2020 In The Matter of: National Building Construction Corporation Ltd [Presently NBCC (India) Limited] V/S M/s. J R Construction High Court of Delhi
12-02-2020 M/s. Om Tara Maa Construction & Others Versus Alaka Roy West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-02-2020 M/s. Mahakaleswar Construction & Another Versus Palash Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-02-2020 Ravi Rathi & Another Versus M/s Aditya Construction Company (India) Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its Director, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
12-02-2020 Richa Jindal Versus Pec University of Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
11-02-2020 M. Velusamy Versus The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., TANGEDCO), General Construction Circle, Tatabad, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Achal Bisht Versus Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management & Catering Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-02-2020 V. Vennila Versus The Executive Engineering Transmission Line Construction/ Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. (TANTRANSCO), Thanjavur District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Ambalal V. Patel Versus Central Medical Service Society Vishwa Yuva Kendra & Others Competition Commission of India
06-02-2020 M/s. Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Limited Versus R. Perumalswamy & Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Corporation Bank V/S Aanav Construction Co. and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
05-02-2020 The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Dipak Chandra Dhar, Senior Trackman, Under Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway, Silchar Versus Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-02-2020 N.V. Usha Versus Njarakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. High Court of Kerala
05-02-2020 Rasi Travels & Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd., A company having its Registered Office at Janpath, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 M/s. Reliance Construction Co., Mumbai & Others Versus Priti O. Ganvir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-02-2020 M/s. Bright Marketing Company, Tirupur Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Syndicate Bank V/S Narayanadri Institute of Science And Technology and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
03-02-2020 Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram (Appearing on Behalf of Southern Railway) Versus P. Rajendran Asari & Another High Court of Kerala
30-01-2020 Shantal Nayak Versus M/s. Wibro Construction Company Through its Proprietor, M.K. Abdulla In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-01-2020 Mondal Construction Company Ltd., Uttarayan, West Bengal & Others Versus Recovery Officer Securities and Exchange Board of India, Kolkata & Others SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
27-01-2020 Krishna Pada Poddar Versus ABS Land Development and Construction Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Tapan Ghosh West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-01-2020 Subir Sen & Another Versus The Ganapati Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
23-01-2020 M/s. URC Construction (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory V. Ganesan, Manager Versus M/s. Airport Authority of India, Rep. by its Senior Manager Engg (C) Project Division - IV, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 Krantikumar Kishanrao Kaulwar & Another Versus Maharashtra Public Service Commission, MPSC & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay