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



The District Collector, Kanchipuram v/s M/s. Gupta Garments, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Anil Gupta & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- D R GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101GJ2005PTC046010

Company & Directors' Information:- R. R. GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1995PLC095544

Company & Directors' Information:- S G GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2004PLC098193

Company & Directors' Information:- K K P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921TZ1994PTC005334

Company & Directors' Information:- B K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2001PTC109850

Company & Directors' Information:- N K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2000PTC107093

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2005PTC101896

Company & Directors' Information:- G AND A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101PB1995PTC016121

Company & Directors' Information:- V H GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52322MH2008PTC181066

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1996PTC083315

Company & Directors' Information:- G. M. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2006PTC152683

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND D GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1975PTC007923

Company & Directors' Information:- J S GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2009PTC135262

Company & Directors' Information:- K. B . GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2011PTC166954

Company & Directors' Information:- A K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2015PTC282847

Company & Directors' Information:- D P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2004PTC129479

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143084

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P GARMENTS PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143556

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101HR2005PTC068124

Company & Directors' Information:- L. H. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17121KA2011PTC060761

Company & Directors' Information:- K R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111WB1998PTC087046

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52321TN1993PTC025318

Company & Directors' Information:- P. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204DL2007PTC164238

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17121DL2007PTC165007

Company & Directors' Information:- T S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51494DL1996PTC076668

Company & Directors' Information:- GARMENTS INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909GJ1979PTC003310

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC164404

Company & Directors' Information:- B G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC142488

Company & Directors' Information:- S P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC120709

Company & Directors' Information:- P N GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2004PTC127524

Company & Directors' Information:- S T GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2015PTC277043

Company & Directors' Information:- P L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2013PTC248417

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC164395

Company & Directors' Information:- R A GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC123385

Company & Directors' Information:- C S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC134787

Company & Directors' Information:- B L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC136912

Company & Directors' Information:- B D S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC137898

Company & Directors' Information:- T G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143392

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U18101DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- G P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC161067

Company & Directors' Information:- I B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2013PTC257044

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U74110DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- A G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51300DL2013PTC257609

Company & Directors' Information:- V R V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2008PTC182256

Company & Directors' Information:- M V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899HR2005PTC141797

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17120HR2013PTC049037

Company & Directors' Information:- V K GARMENTS PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1981PTC012410

Company & Directors' Information:- A S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17212CH1992PTC012350

Company & Directors' Information:- V R GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101CH1991PTC011345

Company & Directors' Information:- S B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2005PTC141954

    Writ Appeal Nos. 1151, 1157, 1166 & 1172 of 2019 & CMP. Nos. 8129, 8146, 8197 & 8231 of 2019

    Decided On, 05 April 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

    For the Appellant: V. Anandha Murthi, AGP. For the Respondents: G. Krishnakumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orders dated 12.2.2018 passed respectively in W.P.Nos.32645, 32647, 32646 and 32644 of 2017.)

Common Judgment

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

1. We have heard Mr.V.Anandha Murthi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Mr.G.Krishnakumar, learned counsel accepting notice for the respondents.

2. These appeals are filed by the appellant – the District Collector, Kanchipuram challenging the orders dated 12.2.2018 made separately in W.P.Nos.32645, 32647, 32646 and 32644 of 2017 filed by the respective respondent herein.

3. The prayer sought for by the respondents herein - writ petitioners was identical though separate orders were passed in each of the said writ petitions. The finding rendered by the learned Single Judge was identical and the respondents were granted relief as sought for by them. Ultimately, the said writ petitions were allowed. Therefore, by consent of the learned counsel on either side, we have taken up the appeals together and they are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The lands owned by the respondents herein – writ petitioners were the subject matter of acquisition under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter called the Act) for construction of road over bridge in lieu of existing railway line crossing No.26 in between Chrompet and Pallavaram railway stations near Vaishnava Women's College to connect NH 45 (GST Road) and Pallavaram Thuraipakkam Radial Road.

5. The acquisition proceedings culminated in Award No.2 of 2007 dated 25.4.2007. In the said award proceedings, it had been recorded by the appellant that an award enquiry was conducted on 24.1.2006, that the authorized representatives of the respondents herein appeared and produced copies of their title deeds, patta, etc and that the quantum of compensation payable to the respondents herein – writ petitioners were quantified. After doing so, the District Collector passed an order stating that the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Chepauk, Chennai had been addressed to issue necessary no objection certificate for land acquisition under the Act, that the ownership of the respondents herein – writ petitioners was required to be proved and that after getting necessary orders from the Government, the compensation amount might be disbursed to the land owners involved in the land acquisition. Therefore, the appellant directed the amounts quantified as compensation to be kept in civil court deposit under Section 22(3) of the Act.

6. On a perusal of the said award dated 25.4.2007, it is not clear as to why the appellant was of the opinion that appropriate clearance/no objection certificate should be obtained from the Urban Land Tax Department.

7. Thereafter, the matter stood referred to the Subordinate Court, Tambaram to decide the issue relating to title of the respondents herein – writ petitioners so as to enable them to accept the compensation quantified. The proceedings, which were referred to the Subordinate Court, Tambaram ended in favour of the respondents herein – writ petitioners and their entitlement/title to the properties was affirmed by the Civil Court by judgment and decree dated 30.4.2013. Ultimately, the compensation, which was quantified in the said award and retained in civil court deposit was disbursed on 05.3.2014 to the respondents herein, who received the same without prejudice to their rights to claim enhanced compensation.

8. Immediately, within a period of 30 days ie. on 10.4.2014, the respondents herein – writ petitioners submitted a representation dated 08.11.2017 to the appellant claiming enhanced compensation. Along with the said representation, they enclosed all the documents, which they relied upon and also mentioned that the guideline value of the lands in question in the area concerned was more than Rs.1,700/- per sq.ft., and that payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq.ft was wholly inadequate and therefore, they claimed enhanced compensation. This representation was not considered by the appellant. Consequently, the respondents herein were compelled to approach this Court by filing W.P.Nos.12675 to 12678 of 2014, which were disposed of by a common order dated 02.6.2014 by directing the appellant to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders.

9. It is thereafter the appellant issued the notice dated 03.9.2014 for affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Ultimately, by order dated 28.10.2014, the request made by the respondents herein – writ petitioners claiming enhanced compensation was rejected on the ground that it was beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 20 of the Act.

10. It is pertinent to note that the other land owners, whose lands were also acquired by the same Notification for the same purpose, had claimed enhanced compensation and that their request was referred to the Subordinate Court, Tambaram for determining enhanced compensation claimed by them.

11. The specific case of the respondents herein – writ petitioners is that they were totally unaware about the reference made in respect of the other land owners and that they were languishing before the Civil Court to establish their right over the properties in question from the year 2007 till 2013. It is the further case of the respondents herein – writ petitioners that they were never put on notice by the appellant as to why he came to the conclusion that the lands in question are hit by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978.

12. According to the respondents herein – writ petitioners, they established their title and only on 30.4.2013, the Subordinate Court, Tambaram decided the same and the respondents herein received compensation only on 05.3.2014 fixed at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq.ft. It is the also case of the respondents herein - writ petitioners that even when the appellant rejected their representation dated 28.10.2014, there was absolutely no whisper about the pendency of the other reference cases before the Subordinate Court, Tambaram in respect of the other land owners, who were affected by the very same acquisition.

13. It is not in dispute that the enhanced compensation in respect of the other lands owners was determined by the Subordinate Court, Tambaram by judgment and decree dated 30.4.2013. Though the judgment was rendered on 30.4.2013, the enhanced compensation as awarded by the Subordinate Court, Tambaram for the other land owners was deposited into court only on 08.8.2017. Further, though the respondents herein – writ petitioners were not informed about the same, they came to know about it only in the year 2017 i.e. after the enhanced compensation was deposited on 08.8.2017. In other words, it was only thereafter the neighboring land owners informed the respondents herein – writ petitioners about the enhancement of compensation, the respondents herein – writ petitioners sent the representation dated 08.11.2017 claiming relief under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the LA Act) as made applicable to the Act.

14. The said representation dated 08.11.2017 was not considered and therefore, the respondents herein once again approached the Writ Court seeking to consider their representation dated 08.11.2017 by filing the present writ petitions in WP.Nos.32644 to 32647 of 2017, which were allowed by separate orders dated 12.2.2018, however, making it clear that the respondents herein – writ petitioners would not be entitled for any compensation for the period of delay occasioned in preferring the said representation dated 08.11.2017 under Section 28A of the LA Act.

15. Mr.V.Anandha Murthi, learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the Statute prescribes a time limit for claiming enhanced compensation and beyond that period, the Court cannot direct the representation to be considered. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of

(i) Union of India Vs. Mangatu Ram [reported in 1997 (6) SCC 59];

(ii) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Marri Venkaiah [reported in 2003 (4) CTC 700]; and

(iii) Model Economic Township Ltd. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector [reported in MANU/SC/0277/2019].

16. Per contra, Mr.G.Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein – writ petitioners submits that the learned Single Judge had taken into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the agony, to which, the respondents herein were put, because their right to properties was unnecessarily questioned, that without passing a speaking order, the matter was referred to the Civil Court in the year 2007, that they were able to establish their right before the Civil Court much later and immediately after obtaining the order from the Civil Court, they accepted the compensation on 05.3.2014. Further, they immediately made a representation on 10.4.2014, which was not considered in proper perspective. It is further contended that the respondents herein earlier approached this Court by filing WP.Nos.12675 to 12678 of 2014 seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the appellant to refer award No. 2/2007 dated 25.4.2007 under Section 18(1) of the LA Act to the appropriate Tribunal within a time frame fixed by this Court. It is also contended that W.P.Nos.12675 to 12678 of 2014 were disposed of on 02.6.2014 by directing the appellant herein to consider the said representation dated 10.4.2014 and pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to the respondents herein.

17. It is again contended by the learned counsel for the respondents herein – writ petitioners that the appellant herein passed orders on 28.10.2014 rejecting the said representation dated 10.4.2014 and that thereafter, after coming to know about the judgment and decree dated 30.4.2013 only in the year 2017, the respondents herein – writ petitioners sent a representation dated 08.11.2017 to the appellant herein for redetermination of the compensation and since that was not considered, they approached the Writ Court once again by filing the present writ petitions. It is again contended that after taking note of the circumstances, the learned Single Judge of this Court granted relief by the respondents herein – writ petitioners in the present writ petitions within the time stipulated, however, denying compensation for the belated period.

18. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents herein – writ petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of

(i) Bir Wati Vs. Union of India [reported in 2017 (16) SCC 548] and

(ii) Karam Chand (dead) by legal heirs Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [SLP(C) No.14700 of 2015 dated 27.10.2017].

19. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material records.

20. Section 20(1) of the Act states that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector or the officer to whom the case was transferred, determining the amount, may, within sixty days from the date of such decision, in so far as it affects him, by application to the Collector or the officer to whom the case was transferred, require that the matter be referred by him for the determination of the Court as defined in the LA Act and when any such application is made, the provisions of Part III of the LA Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to further proceedings in respect thereof.

21. Sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act deals with the decision of the Court on such reference and it states that subject only to such decision, the decision of the Collector determining the amount shall be final.

22. Section 28A of the LA Act deals with re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. Sub-Section (1) of Section 28A is a provision, which grants a remedy for such of those persons, who have failed to make a request for reference to the civil court and on coming to know about the award of enhanced compensation, are entitled to make an application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court requiring the amount of compensation payable to them to be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court.

23. The Proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 28A of the LA Act states that in computing the period of three months, within which, an application to the Collector shall be made under this Sub-Section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.

24. In our considered view, this time limit needs to be computed considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Undoubtedly, Section 28A of the LA Act is a beneficial provision. Though this provision fixes a time limit, the Courts have interpreted the time limit by taking into consideration the conduct of the parties.

25. In the decision in the case of Mangatu Ram relied upon by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there was gross delay and the facts and circumstances of the said case were not identical to that of the case on hand, which are unique and peculiar. Hence, the decision in the case of Mangatu Ram is clearly distinguishable.

26. In the decision in the case of Marri Venkaiah, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 28A of the LA Act is a beneficial provision, that however, the advantage of the benefit, which is conferred, is required to be taken within the stipulated time, that a land owner may be poor or illiterate and because of that, he might not have filed reference application, but that would not mean that he could be negligent in not finding whether other land owners have filed such application. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that the land owners were found to be negligent and therefore, denied the relief.

27. In the decision in the case of Model Economic Township Limited, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the explanation offered by the land owner for not able to prefer any application under Section 28A of the LA Act as an acceptable explanation and therefore, held that the land owner was not entitled to any relief. This decision is not applicable to the case on hand, as we find that the explanation offered by the respondents herein – writ petitioners is acceptable and reasonable.

28. The dates and events, which we narrated in the preceding paragraphs, would clearly show that the respondents herein – writ petitioners were driven to the Civil Court at the instance of the Department without enabling them to know as to why their title to the properties stands doubted and as to why the appellant came to the conclusion that the lands are hit by the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 from 2007 to 2013, during which period, they were in the Civil Court and ultimately, their rights were vindicated. Even at that point of time, the respondents herein – writ petitioners were not made known about the reference applications, which were pending at the instance of the other land owners. Those reference applications were decided only on 30.4.2013. Even though such decision was taken on 30.4.2013, the compensation amount was deposited into Court only on 08.8.2017 and it is only at that point of time, the respondents herein – writ petitioners became aware of the same, as they were informed by the neighboring land owners.

29. It is common knowledge that once the lands are acquired and the claim for enhanced compensation is referred to the Civil Court, litigation prolongs. Many a time, the Department is not willing to settle the matter before the Lok Adalat. Even in the case of other land owners, the reference applications were pending before the Subordinate Court, Tambaram for over six years. Though the Subordinate Court, Tambaram passed the judgment in their favour in the year 2013, for four long years, the appellant did not pay the compensation and only in 2017, the compensation amount was deposited into Court. Immediately thereafter, the respondents herein – writ petitioners sent their representation dated 08.11.2017.

30. In such circumstances, we hold that the delay can be extended in appropriate cases and we find the case of the respondents herein – writ petitioners to be one such appropriate case. To support this conclusion, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karam Chand (dead) by legal heirs wherein it has been held as follows :

“Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appellants sought determination of compensation at par with the compensation awarded to others covered by the same Notification under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said prayer having been rejected on the ground of delay, this appeal has been preferred.

We are of the view that even th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ough limitation is prescribed and it is expected that the aggrieved party takes remedies within such prescribed time, the delay can be extended in appropriate cases. Subject to declining the interest for the delayed period, the compensation can be re-determined and paid to the appellants. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Collector for re-determination of the compensation in above terms. The appeal is disposed of.” 31. In the decision in the case of Bir Wati, an application under Section 28A of the LA Act was held to be belated by the Reference Court and it was confirmed by the High Court. However, on appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the reasons as to why the land owners could not make any application within time and ultimately, indulgence was granted to apply under Section 28A of the LA Act with a view to do complete and substantial justice to the land owners therein. 32. Thus, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge was perfectly right in allowing the present writ petitions and directing the appellant herein to pay enhanced compensation excluding the period of delay. Hence, we find that there is no error in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 33. Accordingly, the writ appeals fail and are dismissed. The appellant is directed to consider the application under Section 28A of the LA Act, award enhanced compensation to the respondents herein – writ petitioners as paid to the other land owners, whose lands were acquired by the very same Notification for the same purpose and disburse the amount within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As observed by the learned Single Judge, the respondents herein – writ petitioners would not be entitled to any compensation/interest for the period of delay. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMPs are also dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

13-01-2020 Union of India rep. By its Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai Versus M/s. Raiments & Garments International, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 The General Manager, Aleppy Parcel Service, Alappuzha Versus Anil Kumar V., Managing Partner, Wetex Garments, Poovattuparamba, Kozhikode Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
22-11-2019 The Management Scotts Garments Limited, Trippur Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-10-2019 M/s. PJS Knit Garments, Rep.by its Partner, P. Sugansaran & Another Versus The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Tirupur Main Branch, Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2019 M/s. Indo Skins Garments Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, N. Thiagarajan, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2019 The Officer In Charge, Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office & Another Versus M/s Godavari Garments Limited Supreme Court of India
04-04-2019 Ginni Garments and Others V/S Sethi Garments and Others. In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
04-04-2019 M/s. Ginni Garments & Another Versus M/s. Sethi Garments & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-03-2019 The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Salem Division & Others Versus M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor Ibrahim Sha, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-12-2018 Batra Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-12-2018 Goodluck Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus., Surat-II High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-09-2018 M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor, Ibrahim Sha, Chennai Versus The Divisional Railway Manager, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2018 Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (Now ECGC Limited), Chennai & Another Versus Zoro Garments Private Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, N.F. Mogrella High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 M/s. Rasathe Garments, Rep by its Partner, Virudhunagar Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I, Virudhunagar High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 Bord for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) Versus Coromandel Garments Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-04-2018 M/s. Sri Rengas Avitta Garments, Represented by its Partner, R. Rajaram & Another Versus R. Indira High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2018 Kandukuri Garments Versus Inspector of Legal Metrology High Court of Karnataka
02-01-2018 A. Velumurugan Versus M/s. Sree Shiva Sakthi Garments, Represented by its Partner Venkatachalam, Tiruppur High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-07-2017 Creative Garments Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E. & S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
10-02-2017 The Management of Foundation Garments Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director ?Divine Grace? Versus Government of Tamil Nadu Labour & Employment (A1) Department, Represented by its Principal Secretary High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-01-2017 R.K. Rajkumar Proprietor M/s. Koghima Garments Versus The Registrar Debts Recovery Tribunal - III Spencer Towers Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2017 Kitex Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director-Sabu M. Jacob Versus State of Kerala, represented by Principal Secretary To Government, Taxes (H) Department & Another High Court of Kerala
02-01-2017 Sonal Garments V/S Commr. of Cus., Seaport (Import), Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
15-09-2016 M/s. Rasathe Garments Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I (FAC) Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-09-2016 Carol Garments & Another Versus The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-06-2016 M/s. Oxygen the Digital Shop, Pulimoottil Arcade, Kottayam & Another Versus Namadevan.L., Anna Garments & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
12-02-2016 M/s. Anjal Garments Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2015 Provident Fund Commissioner Versus M/s. Bena Garments High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2015 M/s. Triven Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director & Others Versus State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2015 SCM Garments (P.) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-III, Coimbatore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
18-12-2014 Nelly Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
26-11-2014 Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-II Versus Ankit Garments Manufacturing Co. High Court of Delhi
07-11-2014 KMC Textiles & Garments, rep.by its Proprietor, Shaj Mohammed Versus The Chief Manager & Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Trichy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-10-2014 Board of Investment of Sri Lanka Versus Million Garments (PVT) Ltd. Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
28-08-2014 Sakthi Fashions, Manufacturers & Exporters of Fabrics and Garments, Represented by its Proprietrix Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, Represented by its General Manager Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
11-06-2014 National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus M/s. Ess Ell Garments Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
01-05-2014 Sri Priyaluckshmi Garments Represented by Mrs. G. Mahalakshmi, Partner & Others Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-04-2014 Vijay Karlekar, Proprietor, M/s. New Keerthi Garments & Another Versus Karnataka State Financial Corporation & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-04-2014 In Re Jagadamba Garments Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-02-2014 M/s. Lakshya Garments through its Proprietor Versus National Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-09-2013 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Versus M/s. Anjali Silks & Garments High Court of Karnataka
26-04-2013 M/s. Viking Garments, (A Partnership Firm) Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-04-2013 A.J. Ramadoss Versus S. Padmavathy and N. Sankar(spouse) Om Siva Sakthi Garments National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-11-2012 CC&CE, Guntur Versus M/s. Kandukuri Garments (P) Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
12-10-2012 M/s. C.S. Garments & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2012 Commissioner of Income Tax Versus First Garments Manufacturing Co. India (P) Ltd High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-06-2012 M/s. Amex Garments Pvt. Ltd. Ekkattuthangal, Guindy, Rep. by Director Versus The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2012 M/s. Kitex Garments Ltd. Versus CC, Cochin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
23-12-2011 M/S. Shyam Garments & Others Versus State Bank Of India High Court of Delhi
09-11-2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Koregaon Branch Soham Bldg., Rahimatpur Road, Koregaon, Dist. Versus M/s. Prinita Garments Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
03-11-2011 Levi Strauss & Company Versus Nizami Garments High Court of Delhi
25-07-2011 Commissioner of Customs Versus Kitex Garments High Court of Kerala
14-07-2011 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Somesh Readymade Garments National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-04-2011 Anthony Garments Pvt., Ltd., Represented by A. Joseph Antony, Managing Director Versus The Commercial Tax Officer & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-03-2011 M/s.Gayatri Garments Represented by its proprietor Shri.B.Selvakumar Versus Smt.S.Valambal, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2011 M/s. V.K.T. Rajkumar Garments Versus The Colonel, Colonel Administration for Commendent, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2010 M/s. T.K.T. Garments Versus The Manager Sri Balaji Transport Lines & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-10-2010 Dandy Garments Erode Versus The Employees State Insurance Corpn & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2010 M/s. Shyam Garments & Others V/S State Bank of India Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Delhi
18-08-2010 Tvl. V. Win Garments Rep. by its Proprietor Versus The Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-08-2010 M/s. Stallion Garments Versus CC, Tuticorin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
30-07-2010 M/s. Muthuraman Exports (Presently known as M/s. Perfect Stitch Garments P Ltd) Versus The Customs & Central Excise & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-07-2010 Vijay S/o Shamrao Bhale Versus Godavari Garments Ltd. & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-03-2010 Peoples Bank Versus Lokuge International Garments Ltd. Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
18-02-2010 The Management of M/s. Stallion Garments Versus The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2010 M/s. Fine Fit Garments Versus CC, Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
04-01-2010 M/s Shri Ram Garments & Another & Accessories Versus CCE, Meerut Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-08-2009 M/s. Bhakti Garments Versus Subhash B. Vishwakarma In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-06-2009 Riya Garments Private Limited v/s Pratap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Laminations Limited and Others Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Delhi
20-05-2009 Awadheswari Prasad Narain Singh Versus Priti Garments Patna High Court of Bihar
16-05-2009 Persian Leather Garments Versus Commissioner, Industries & Commerce & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
17-04-2009 Chander Sain & Others Versus J.B. Garments High Court of Delhi
24-02-2009 Kitex Garments Ltd., Versus State Of Kerala High Court of Kerala
05-01-2009 Futuristics Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
18-12-2008 I.T.C. Limited Versus Deepak Garments High Court of Delhi
23-09-2008 Southern Export Corporation A. Rajagopalan Versus Vijayseema Garments And Hosiery Private Limited High Court of Delhi
26-06-2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Ashapura Garments Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-08-2007 CCE Salem Versus V.Tex Garments Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
09-08-2007 P. Vijaya Raghunathan Versus M/s. Green Cotton Garments rep. by its Managing Directors & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-03-2007 Garments India Exports and Another v/s Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited and Another Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Chennai
15-02-2007 Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation Versus J.S. Garments High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-01-2007 Elegant Garments Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-12-2006 (1) In Re : Rbr Knit Process Private Limited; (2) In Re :Rbr Clothings Private Limited; (3) In Re : Rbr Garments Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-10-2006 Angel Garments Limited Versus DIT (International Taxation)Chennai Authority For Advance Rulings Income Tax New Delhi
26-10-2006 Kerala Textile and Garments Dealer Welfare Association and Another Versus The State of Kerale High Court of Kerala
16-03-2006 La Chemise Lacoste & Another Versus R.H. Garments & Others High Court of Delhi
14-03-2006 Rita Garments Versus Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj High Court of Delhi
19-08-2005 Sundaram Finance Services Ltd., rep. by its President, the Principal Officer, having its Office at Deshabandhu Plaza, No. 47, Whites Road, Chennai Versus Shoba Garments (P) Ltd., No. 127-B, Brickkiln Road, Norton Shanmuga Building, II Floor, Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 007 and others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-11-2004 MERBANC FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, PANJAGUTTA VERSUS CHILIPI KRISH GARMENTS (P) LTD. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-07-2004 Garments India Exporters Versus Director of Enforcement Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange New Delhi
21-06-2004 M/s.S.M. Garments Private Limited Versus Inspector General of Registration & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2004 Radhamani India Ltd., Decree-holder Versus Imperial Garments Ltd High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-03-2004 Venkateshwara Garments and Exports and Another V/S Dena Bank Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
07-11-2003 Modesty Garments Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
10-02-2003 M/s.Amarjothi Spinning Mills Ltd. Versus M/s. B.R.B.Garments High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-11-2002 The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, rep. by its Madras North Branch Senior Manager Versus M.S. Gopal, Proprietor, Suki Garments & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2002 M/s. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-08-2002 Sonal Garments Versus Trimbak Shankar Karve High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2002 M/s. Chevron Garments (P) Ltd. 1986 Trichy Main Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore, Rep. by its Managing Director S. Ramanathan Versus Sri Malini Spinning Mills Ltd. (Formerly P.A. Mills Ltd.) Trichy Main Road, Ammapalayam Village Sandhiyur, Attayampatty (via) Mallur, Salem-636 203. Rep. by its Chief Accountant K.S.S. Prakaash High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2002 Plaza Garments Versus Textile Apparels High Court of Delhi