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



The Management of Foundation Garments Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director Divine Grace v/s Government of Tamil Nadu Labour & Employment (A1) Department, Represented by its Principal Secretary


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:- GRACE CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45203MH2008PTC178250

Company & Directors' Information:- S & P FOUNDATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201TN2004PTC052428

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

Company & Directors' Information:- GRACE GARMENTS LTD [Active] CIN = U18109GJ1994PLC023862

Company & Directors' Information:- J. J. FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U80301DL2011NPL226584

Company & Directors' Information:- GRACE (INDIA) LTD [Active] CIN = L65921WB1983PLC036240

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

Company & Directors' Information:- EMPLOYMENT MANAGEMENT (INDIA) LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74140MH1981PLC024970

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

Company & Directors' Information:- B & R FOUNDATION PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U85110WB1993PTC060942

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:- M S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC046660

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

Company & Directors' Information:- R K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18100GJ1994PTC023240

Company & Directors' Information:- FOUNDATION GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101TN1971PTC005946

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:- S G H FOUNDATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TN2008PTC068056

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

Company & Directors' Information:- H H FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U85191UP2015NPL072454

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:- I G S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2004PTC128723

Company & Directors' Information:- DIVINE GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101CH1996PTC017837

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC164129

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:- J B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101PB1996PTC017533

Company & Directors' Information:- V P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18109DL2012PTC233293

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:- AT FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U73100DL2017NPL312518

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:- I & S FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U74900DL2015NPL288389

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:- P M P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC134811

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

Company & Directors' Information:- C S FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U91990MH2005NPL151960

Company & Directors' Information:- L I F T FOUNDATION [Active] CIN = U80900TN2011NPL081993

    W.P. No. 13968 of 2003 & W.P.M.P. No. 26990 of 2003

    Decided On, 10 February 2017

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

    For the Petitioner: V. Prakash, Sr. Counsel for P. Chandrasekaran, Advocate. For the Respondent: V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, Special Government Pleader.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent relating to the issue of Government Order in G.O. (D) No.1119 dated 30.12.2002 and quash the same.)

1. The Management of Foundation Garments Private Ltd. (for brevity 'the Management') has filed the present writ petition challenging G.O. (D) No.1119, Labour and Employment Department dated 30.12.2002 passed by the respondent under Section 34(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the ID Act'), directing the Inspector of Labour-II, Chennai, to file a complaint against the Management for an offence punishable under Section 25-O of the ID Act.

2. Heard Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management and Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

3. Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the Management contended that the impugned order dated 30.12.2002 has been passed by the Government without application of mind and is therefore void. In support of this contention, he placed strong reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in F.K. Menzlin vs. B.P. Premakumar [(1991) 1 LLJ 55 Kant] and also upon the following passage of a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in S.N. Hada and others vs. Binny Limited Staff Association [(1988) I LLJ 405 Kant]:

'13 The intent of the Legislature in enacting a provision like Section 34 is to save the party against whom the complaint is to be filed, from harassment, and it is for that reason that the Government is required to apply its mind and determine the propriety of filing a complaint. The phrase 'under the authority of the appropriate Government' implies a sanction by the Government after it has considered the desirability of prosecution. If such a provision had not been enacted there could be every likelihood of filing of frivolous complaints indiscriminately. Moreover, there are certain offences which have importance either to the Employer or the Employee only. In such matters why should the Government at all involve its officers in filing the complaint and not allow the real aggrieved party to prosecute the complaint properly and diligently. What interest can the Government or its agency have in filing and prosecuting a complaint in which the rights of some private individuals are involved and which does not require determination of some question which may be of some importance and may warrant intervention of the State Government or its agency. As is clear, authorisation is a prerequisite essential for taking cognizance of an offence under this Section. The appropriate Government, therefore, is required to apply its mind and satisfy itself before it grants the authority. It is this satisfaction which is material and sufficient for the purpose. Once on consideration of the relevant material the State Government finds it to be a fit case for prosecution, then who should file the complaint is not of much importance.'

4. He further attributed mala fides in the action of the Government on the ground stated in paragraph no.5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

'5. I respectfully submit that I am married to Mr. V. Prakash, Advocate, who also happens to be the Trade Union Leader and he has appeared for the workers before this Hon'ble Court in a number of cases. Therefore, the management of big companies in this part of the country have exerted pressure on the Labour Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu to prosecute us for alleged violation of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even though none of them in the first place complied with the provisions of the Labour Welfare Legislations. The respondent Government also has prosecuted none of the other companies for the alleged violation of this provision till date. . . . '

He further contended that Section 25-O of the ID Act can be pressed into service only if there are more the 100 workers employed in the company for the previous 12 months prior to the closure, whereas, the petitioner-company does not fulfil this condition.

5. It is his further submission that the Founder of the company J.B. Canthaswamy died on 12.10.1997 and his son Jonathan V.Canthaswamy also died on 28.09.2000 and that only Anna Marie Canthaswamy is presently managing the affairs of the company. Lastly, he contended that in the absence of any counter affidavit filed by the Government refuting the allegations made by the petitioner-company, this Court should accept the averments in the affidavit as truth and quash the Government Order.

6. Per contra, Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent refuted the contentions raised on the side of the petitioner-company.

7. To appreciate the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-company, it may be necessary to extract Section 34(1) of the ID Act as under:

34 Cognizance of offences:

(1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or of the abetment of any such offence, save on complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate Government.'

8. It is trite that criminal law can be set in motion by anyone except where the statute provides otherwise. For offences under the ID Act, a private individual cannot file a complaint in view of Section 34(1) of the Act. The issue before the Full Bench of High Court of Karnataka in S.N. Hada and others (supra) was whether a complaint lodged by a private individual securing permission from the Government, could be regarded as a complaint made under Section 34 of the ID Act.

9. In the case at hand, the Commissioner of Labour had sent a report to the Government stating that the Management of Foundation Garments Private Ltd. has not observed the provisions of Section 25-O of the ID Act regarding the closure of the unit and there are 117 workers working in the unit who have been denied employment. On the strength of the report sent by the Commissioner of Labour, the Government has passed the impugned order dated 30.12.2002 directing the Inspector of Labour, Chennai, to file a complaint before the competent Court.

10. The Supreme Court, in Mysore Structurals Ltd. and Others vs. State of Karanakata and another [(2002) 1 SCC 477, has declared the law on the subject, as under:

'7. As observed by this Court in Raj Kumar Gupta v.Lt. Governor, Delhi [(1997) 1 SCC 556 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 181] the provisions of Section 34 of the Act are in the nature of a limitation on the entitlement of a workman or a trade union or an employer to complain of offences under the Act. It was pointed out that they should not, in the public interest, be permitted to make frivolous, vexatious or otherwise patently untenable complaints, and to this end Section 34 requires that no complaint shall be taken cognizance of unless it is made with the authorization of the appropriate government.'

11. On a reading of the above, it is clear that Section 34 of the ID Act is in the nature of 'a limitation on the entitlement to lodge a complaint under the Act', albeit, in the broad sense, it is called a sanction order, though it is not one stricto sensu.

12. In Prakash Singh Badal and another vs. State of Punjab and Others [AIR 2007 SC 1274], the Supreme Court, while discussing the scope of judicial review of an order of sanction granted under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has held that absence of sanction can be agitated at the threshold, but, omission, error or irregularity is considered fatal, unless it has resulted in failure of justice, that too, in the opinion of the Court.

13. In this case, the impugned order dated 30.12.2002 clearly states the circumstances in which it has been passed, viz., on the report given by the Commissioner of Labour that the Management had violated the provisions of Section 25-O of the ID Act. A reading of the impugned order prima facie shows that the Commissioner of Labour has forwarded the necessary materials to the Government for prosecuting the petitioner.

14. As regards the allegation of mala fides, in State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldhana [(1980) 1 SCC 554], it has been held by the Supreme Court that mala fides or bias of an informant is of secondary importance, if, at the trial, impeccable evidence disclosing the offence has been brought on record.

15. In State of Bihar and another vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and another [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222], the Supreme Court has categorically held as follows:

'55. It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nomine as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those allegations would be made. Otherwise it itself is violative of the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the allegation of mala fides or bias alleged against them. Nothing has been alleged, nor brought to our notice that preceding laying the complaint before the police, R.K. Singh, had any personal animosity against the respondents. Nothing has also been brought to our notice, nor alleged either in the High Court or in this Court that after his filing the complaint he had any say in the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer or exercised any pressure to investigate the case in any particular way to secure the conviction of the respondents. The only allegation relied on by the High Court is that R.K. Singh before laying the first information report did not look into certain documents or did not deliver them up for a week to the investigating officer. Had he considered them things would be favourable to the respondents and that no administrative sanction was obtained. That by itself in our considered view would not lead to any irresistible conclusion that R.K. Singh was actuated with any personal bias or mala fides against Sharma or Ganesh Dutt Mishra. At the most it may be said that he had not properly exercised his discretion before laying the complaint. Equally no personal bias was alleged to the Investigating Officer nor found in this regard by the High Court. The ground on which reliance was placed and found acceptable to the High Court is that when the documents said to be favourable to the respondents were brought to his notice, he did not investigate into those facts on the ground of being ‘irrelevant’. Freedom from bias is an integral part of the principles of natural justice. When bias was imputed to exist, he ought not to take part in a decision making process. Police officer has a statutory duty to investigate into the crime suspected to have been committed by the accused, by collecting necessary evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Investigator exercises no judicial or quasi-judicial duty except the statutory function of a ministerial nature to collect the evidence. With his expertise, skill or knowledge he has to find whether the accused committed the offence alleged against. If the accused is aware that the Investigating Officer was personally biased against him, it is his primary duty to bring it to the notice of the higher authorities or the court at the earliest, of the circumstances or on the grounds on which he believed that the Investigating Officer is actuated with malice and impartial investigation cannot be had. If he allows the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and the report submitted, it amounts to his waiving the objection and he would not be allowed to impeach the charge-sheet on the ground of the alleged bias or mala fides. Moreover, the Investigating Officer would be available to cross-examination at the trial of the case and it would be open to the accused to elicit from the Investigating Officer necessary circumstances or grounds to throw doubt on the impartiality of the Investigating Officer and must establish its effect on the prosecution evidence adduced at the trial. It is for the court to consider how far it has affected materially the result of the trial. The evidence collected during investigation would be subject to proof as per Evidence Act and tested by cross-examination. The reasoning of the courts below that if an authority does not act impartially or in good faith then a reasonable mind can definitely infer the bias for reason best known to the authorities is too wide a statement of law in the context of police/Investigating Officer.'

16. In this case, except making a vague allegation in paragraph no.5 of the affidavit that some competitors inimical to Mr.V.Prakash have engineered the prosecution, there is no other averment in the affidavit. As held in P.P. Sharma, IAS (supra), the petitioner-company has not even impleaded the person against whom mala fides has been imputed, as a party respondent. Thus, in the absence of the minimum requirements for sustaining the plea of mala fides, the non-filing of the counter affidavit by the State Government refuting the allegations is a non-issue. At this juncture, it may be apposite to extract the words of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the Supreme Court in P.P. Sharma, IAS (supra) as under: '68. . . . . The State quite legitimately and in my view rightly did not choose to file the counter-affidavit denying or contradicting the version of the respondents, in those documents. The commission of offence cannot be decided on affidavit evidence. The High Court has taken short course 'in annihilating the still born prosecution' by going into the merits on the plea of proof of prima facie case and adverted to those facts and gave findings on merits. Grossest error of law has been committed by the High Court in making pre-trial of a criminal case in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. . . . . ' 17. As regards the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there were less than 100 workers in the unit, this is a question of fact which cannot be decided in writ proceedings. 18. Further, in this case, the Labour Officer has not even filed a complaint against the petitioner-company and even before that, the petitioner-company has filed the present writ petition and has obtained stay of all further proceedings on 04.08.2003 and has successfully enjoyed the order of stay till date. This Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot stifle a prosecution that is yet to be born. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. No costs. Connected W.P.M.P. is closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

13-10-2020 Chowgule & Company Private Limited Versus Goa Foundation & Others Supreme Court of India
28-08-2020 Karnataka Professional Colleges Foundation Rep. by its Secretary R.V. Govinda Rao & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-08-2020 The Goa Foundation through its Secretary, Dr Claude Alvares Versus The Department of Mines & Geology, Though its Director, Menezes Braganza Bldg. & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-04-2020 Justice For Rights Foundation & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
26-02-2020 Parvesh Magoo Versus IREO Grace Realtech Private Limited, New Delhi National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
20-02-2020 Auroville Foundation, Auroville, Rep. by its Secretary Versus Alexander & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 The United Goans Foundation, through its Secretary Avinash Tavares Versus The State of Goa through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
30-01-2020 Santha Medical Foundation (a Public Charitable Trust), Rep. by its Chairman & Trustee Dr. S. Saravanan & Another Versus The Commissioner of Rural Development and Local Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Chowgule & Company Private Limited Versus Goa Foundation & Others Supreme Court of India
20-01-2020 Manu Solanki & Others Versus Vinayaka Mission University(Formerly Known As Vinayaka Mission's Research Foundation Deemed University), Salem & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
18-12-2019 M/s. Medical Research Foundation, Chennai Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-12-2019 M/s. Espire Infolabs Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sadhana Foundation Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 Meena Oberoi Versus Cambridge Foundation School & Others High Court of Delhi
27-11-2019 M/s. UCO Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Represented by its Assistant General Manager, S. Jagadesh Kumar, Chennai Versus The Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, (Ministry of Labour and Employment Government of India), Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 A. Murugan & Others Versus M/s. Rainbow Foundation Ltd, Anoop Chand Jain, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2019 The Management Scotts Garments Limited, Trippur Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-10-2019 V.K. Dhingra Versus Shri Ram Scientific Industrial Research Foundation High Court of Delhi
16-10-2019 Grace Estate Development Venture & Others Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
01-10-2019 The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others Versus Grace Sathyavathy Shashikant & Others Supreme Court of India
01-10-2019 Dr. George Jacob, Ahaliya Foundation Eye Hospital, Thekkemuriyil Arcade, Pathanamthitta & Others Versus Krishnakumar & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
26-09-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption U.P State Cons. & Infra. Versus M/s. Reham Foundation Kandhari Lane Lal Bagh, Lucknow High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-09-2019 Gandhi Kamaraj Social Welfare Foundation, Represented by its Chairman, P. Ganesan Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2019 The Goa Foundation, through its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares & Another Versus Panchayat of Morjim Through its Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
22-08-2019 Director of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chennai Versus M/s. Alpha India Foundation, Salamangalam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2019 The Mango Foundation (TMF), Through its Member, Severino Fernandes Versus State of Goa, Through its Chief Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
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
05-08-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Pentafour Software Employees' Welfare Foundation, Chennai 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
05-07-2019 V. Gnanarajapushpam & Another Versus M/s. BBC Foundation Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Vummidi Barath, T. Nagar High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-06-2019 K. Rajinikanth, Proprietor, Rajinikanth Foundation, Coimbatore Versus The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-06-2019 Foundation For Organizational Research & Education Fore School of Management Through Its Director Versus The All India Council For Technical Education Through The Member Secretary Supreme Court of India
04-06-2019 A. Sivakumar & Others Versus The Director, Dr.Ambedkar Foundation, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-04-2019 Muthayammal Educational Trust & Research Foundation Rep by its Administrative Officer, Namakkal District Versus The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-04-2019 Promila Kashyap Versus M/s. Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-04-2019 The District Collector, Kanchipuram Versus M/s. Gupta Garments, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Anil Gupta & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 M/s. Ginni Garments & Another Versus M/s. Sethi Garments & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
04-04-2019 Daraksha Khan Versus Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-04-2019 Ginni Garments and Others V/S Sethi Garments and Others. In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
03-04-2019 Grace Rai @ Rose Versus Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau Bengaluru Zonal Unit High Court of Karnataka
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
05-03-2019 Subrata Banerjee Versus Susrat Eye Foundation and Research Centre & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
04-03-2019 Morris County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders Versus Freedom From Religion Foundation Supreme Court of United States
26-02-2019 Grace Shelter Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-02-2019 M/s. Vivekananda Foundation (R), Mysore, Represented by its Secretary Venkat Narayana Chekuri Versus State of Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
15-02-2019 Hinduja Foundation Versus Income Tax Officer, Exemptions - 1(3), Mumbai & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-01-2019 Pradeep Kumar Gupta & Others Versus Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-01-2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Grace Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Rajasthan
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
30-11-2018 Reham Foundation, Lucknow Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lucknow
29-11-2018 Acit (E), New Delhi Versus M/s. Goodearth Foundation, New Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi
27-11-2018 Mohit Mahajan Versus Foundation For Innovation & Technology Transfer (FITT) & Others High Court of Delhi
16-11-2018 M/s. Chakra Educational Foundation, Chennai Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-11-2018 M/s. Calibre Educational Foundation, Represented by its Trustees Madhuvanthi Arun & Others Versus Karur Vysya Bank, Represented by its The Authorized Officer, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2018 Public Interest Foundation & Others Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
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
24-09-2018 Subodh Pawar Versus M/s. Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-09-2018 The President, National Horticultural Research & Development Foundation, Maharashtra & Others Versus P. Murugesan & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-08-2018 D.M. Education & Research Foundation, A Charitable & Educational Trust Having Its Registered Office at Naseera Nagar, Wayanad District Represented by Its Authorized Signatory & Law Oficer, Zalazi Kallangodan & Another Versus Union of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Represented by Its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
24-08-2018 The Goa Foundation, through its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares Versus Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, 1st Floor, B-Wing & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
17-08-2018 Devnar Foundation for the Blind, Hyderabad, Rep. by Dr. A. Saibaba Goud, Chairman Versus Rehabilitation Council of India, New Delhi, Rep. by its Secretary In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
03-08-2018 M/s. Nakoda Foundation & Development Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director Gatraj Jain & Others Versus Kamala Muthiah & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-07-2018 Vivek Joy Versus Chinchu Grace Lukose High Court of Kerala
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
16-07-2018 Grace Casting Ltd. and Others V/S C.C.E.& S.T., Ahmedabad-III Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
13-07-2018 Bord for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) Versus Coromandel Garments Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
08-06-2018 Sundaram Medical Foundation, Dr. Rangarajan Memorial Hospital, Chennai Versus Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2018 Pratap Singh & Others Versus Ramjas Foundation High Court of Delhi
25-05-2018 Malvika Foundation, Through its Trustee Suresh Sachdev, New Delhi & Another Versus Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Sikkim & Another High Court of Sikkim
21-05-2018 Sunil, Chairman, Lazer Nadar Education & Research Foundation, Thirupuram & Others Versus Lalitha High Court of Kerala
18-05-2018 Subrata Banerjee Versus Susrat Eye Foundation & Research Centre & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
10-05-2018 All India Council For Technical Education, Through The Member Secretary, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi,& Others Versus Holistic Foundation Durg A Society & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
30-04-2018 Soumen Sengupta & Others Versus Asia Heart Foundation & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-04-2018 The Foundation Educational Trust, Represented by its Trustee, Terry Mathews Versus State of Karnataka, Department of Education, by the Secretary, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
25-04-2018 Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Versus Haywood United Kingdom Supreme Court
12-04-2018 Public Health Foundation India V/S CST, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
05-04-2018 Delhi Public School Society Versus DPS World Foundation & Another High Court of Delhi
04-04-2018 Kandukuri Garments Versus Inspector of Legal Metrology High Court of Karnataka
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
20-03-2018 M/s. AAR Foundation, Rep. by its Proprietor Versus Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-03-2018 The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai & Others Versus Subbulakshmi Lakshmipathy Foundation, Rep. by its Director Laksmipathy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-03-2018 Grace Lutheran Church, Rep. by its Secretary, V. John Moses, Vellore Versus The Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-03-2018 Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Lata Mangeshkar Medical Foundation High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-02-2018 Pachomiose Educational & Charitable Enlightenment Foundation, (Peace Foundation), St. George Orthodox Carmelkunnu Church, Muvattupuzha - Represented by Its Secretary & Others Versus P.P. Mathai & Others High Court of Kerala
26-02-2018 Gangavarapu Grace Mani Versus The State through S.H.O., P.S. Maddipadu, Prakasam, rep. by its Public Prosecutor In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
26-02-2018 Gangavarapu Grace Mani Versus The State through S.H.O., P.S. Maddipadu, Prakasam, rep. by its Public Prosecutor In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
06-02-2018 IQ City Foundation & Another Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
23-01-2018 P.S.T.S. Charities, (now known as P.S.T.S. Foundation), Tuticorin, through its Managing Trustee T. Velshankar Versus The District Collector, Tuticorin & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-01-2018 Rosalinds Mediretta Institutional Foundation V/S CST, New Delhi Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
15-01-2018 Hamdard National Foundation (India) V/S CST, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
08-01-2018 M/s. Ben Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Chennai Versus The Deputy Commissioner (SMR), Office of the Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-01-2018 Pushpamary & Another Versus Grace Nesammal & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2018 National Horticulture Research & Development Foundation Versus Ravinder Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-01-2018 A. Velumurugan Versus M/s. Sree Shiva Sakthi Garments, Represented by its Partner Venkatachalam, Tiruppur High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-12-2017 Thangaraj Sole Proprietor of T.R.Foundation Versus Arulpriya & Another Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai