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



The Manager, Vimal Jyothi Engineering College, Kannur & Others v/s State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- M & B ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200GJ1981PLC004437

Company & Directors' Information:- G. R. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1990PTC058602

Company & Directors' Information:- G G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = L28900MH2006PLC159174

Company & Directors' Information:- V U B ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29290MH2005PTC154033

Company & Directors' Information:- N S ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29219TG1989PTC010511

Company & Directors' Information:- S S S ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27205KA1981PTC004194

Company & Directors' Information:- H M G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1977PLC019533

Company & Directors' Information:- K R R ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29309TN1989PTC016852

Company & Directors' Information:- G G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28900MH2006PLC159174

Company & Directors' Information:- D B ENGINEERING PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC026541

Company & Directors' Information:- G G ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28900MH2006PTC159174

Company & Directors' Information:- J P ENGINEERING CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U34103WB1951PTC019638

Company & Directors' Information:- T P W ENGINEERING LTD [Active] CIN = U27203WB1975PLC029939

Company & Directors' Information:- C L ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300PB1992PTC012057

Company & Directors' Information:- W & W ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TN2003PTC051228

Company & Directors' Information:- K B ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74160TG1988PTC008366

Company & Directors' Information:- R P ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29299WB1992PTC055482

Company & Directors' Information:- S P T ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U27109UP2005PTC030940

Company & Directors' Information:- A M ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65910MH1981PTC187856

Company & Directors' Information:- C T ENGINEERING LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29259GJ1986PLC009007

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND S ENGINEERING INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29199GJ1995PTC027661

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND R ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29199TZ1999PTC009012

Company & Directors' Information:- I Q ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KA1996PTC021507

Company & Directors' Information:- G M ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910GJ2013PTC077091

Company & Directors' Information:- W. E. ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U52335WB1985PTC039370

Company & Directors' Information:- L. B. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2018PTC225084

Company & Directors' Information:- R I ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210KA1991PTC012420

Company & Directors' Information:- U D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32109DL1999PTC102586

Company & Directors' Information:- C A G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00350PB2006PLC029521

Company & Directors' Information:- C A G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29110PB2006PLC029521

Company & Directors' Information:- D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29269TZ1932PTC000046

Company & Directors' Information:- V K B ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC141483

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200PN1999PTC014259

Company & Directors' Information:- K. I. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2009PTC133109

Company & Directors' Information:- G M E P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29192DL1998PTC096737

Company & Directors' Information:- M C ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1972PTC006392

Company & Directors' Information:- C P ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27209TN1987PTC014052

Company & Directors' Information:- H V S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28920MH2005PTC158342

Company & Directors' Information:- S C ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74210WB1982PTC035623

Company & Directors' Information:- U M ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29200MH1977PTC019574

Company & Directors' Information:- S K ENGINEERING CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U05001UP1952PTC002408

Company & Directors' Information:- G D ENGINEERING COMPANY (INDIA) PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74210WB1993PTC058553

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. I. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36999HR2007PTC036660

Company & Directors' Information:- A P V ENGINEERING CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29113WB1945PLC006428

Company & Directors' Information:- G B ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29212PB1996PTC017500

Company & Directors' Information:- T P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201OR2010PTC011517

Company & Directors' Information:- S B ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29199GJ1982PTC005292

Company & Directors' Information:- D & L ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U29113TN2004PTC052690

Company & Directors' Information:- H R P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31503MH1997PTC108621

Company & Directors' Information:- S H ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB1999PTC088930

Company & Directors' Information:- V K S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28133TN2005PTC057283

Company & Directors' Information:- M K ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29199GJ1995PTC027278

Company & Directors' Information:- K J ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29299PN2006PTC129171

Company & Directors' Information:- N. P. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31100WB2010PTC150609

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1994PTC063442

Company & Directors' Information:- M P T ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29299KL1994PTC007761

Company & Directors' Information:- A K ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50300UP1981PTC005354

Company & Directors' Information:- F-LOCAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63031KA2019PTC130944

Company & Directors' Information:- J P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28129MH1972PTC015813

Company & Directors' Information:- V M ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28920MH1969PTC014224

Company & Directors' Information:- M M ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U28932MH1979PTC021819

Company & Directors' Information:- N G T ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB1968PTC027292

Company & Directors' Information:- M A S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1976PTC019233

Company & Directors' Information:- K P ENGINEERING CORPORATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74200WB1961PTC025258

Company & Directors' Information:- M A N INDIA ENGINEERING LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74200WB1979PLC020893

Company & Directors' Information:- VIMAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24231DL1999PTC099648

Company & Directors' Information:- R K ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1975PTC007743

Company & Directors' Information:- A R M ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U00500JH1988PTC003057

Company & Directors' Information:- L & V ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202MZ2005PTC007690

Company & Directors' Information:- C P C ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29120TZ1986PTC001880

Company & Directors' Information:- P K R ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29130TZ2004PTC011094

Company & Directors' Information:- S D S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28999PN2000PTC014838

Company & Directors' Information:- N T ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999PY1986PTC000445

Company & Directors' Information:- R K ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31100MH2005PTC152838

Company & Directors' Information:- V J S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29130TN1996PTC036636

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. V. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253MH2010PTC205237

Company & Directors' Information:- U S ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U34300CH1986PTC006887

Company & Directors' Information:- A D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210OR1989PTC002348

Company & Directors' Information:- R J ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107RJ1972PTC001441

Company & Directors' Information:- O N ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC031987

Company & Directors' Information:- P N ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1980PTC032750

Company & Directors' Information:- S G D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29210KA2009PTC050452

Company & Directors' Information:- G A S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29191MH2004PTC149606

Company & Directors' Information:- M. M. K. ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29305MH2014PTC252830

Company & Directors' Information:- K-4 ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31400MH2010PTC204004

Company & Directors' Information:- N J ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209MH2015PTC262607

Company & Directors' Information:- P R S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253TN2009PTC073915

Company & Directors' Information:- T A ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28992CH2003PTC025800

Company & Directors' Information:- M N A ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202CH2006PTC030215

Company & Directors' Information:- A A P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27106DL2005PTC138318

Company & Directors' Information:- A C ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29253DL2011PTC222515

Company & Directors' Information:- S. Z. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29253DL2014PTC274095

Company & Directors' Information:- IN ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210DL2011PTC212284

Company & Directors' Information:- J N ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2015PTC278906

Company & Directors' Information:- N I ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2015PTC280734

Company & Directors' Information:- A N D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51502DL2012PTC242516

Company & Directors' Information:- Z. M. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2007PTC168270

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND T ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300DL2005PTC136846

Company & Directors' Information:- THE ENGINEERING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1951PTC000699

Company & Directors' Information:- S I ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109UP1967PTC003182

Company & Directors' Information:- S D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1999PTC102948

Company & Directors' Information:- M B D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210DL2008PTC181446

Company & Directors' Information:- KERALA ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U74210KL1901PTC002134

    W.P(C). Nos. 18185 of 2019, 17577 of 2010, 24238 of 2011, 1421 of 2013, 9333 of 2014, 10323 & 11152 of 2015, 28475 of 2016, 6468 of 2017, 10637 & 37453 of 2018, 7493, 11725 & 12720 of 2019

    Decided On, 15 November 2019

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

    For the Petitioners: Kurian George Kannanthanam, K.P. Dandapani, Sr. Advocates, Tony George Kannanthanam, Alex George Chamapparayil, Millu Dandapani, M.R. Anison, Annie Jacob, K.P. Geetha Mani, P.A. Rinusa, Madhu N. Namboothiripad, Thomas George, V. Bhargavi (Panangad), K.P. Geetha Mani, P.A. Rinusa, R. Krishna Raj, Bijith S. Khan, E.S. Soni, K.M. Firoz, M. Shajna, R.K. Muraleedharan, Advocates. For the Respondents: C.M. Nazar, Special Government Pleader, M.K. Chandra Mohan Das, P.K. Manojkumar, SC, S. Sreekumar, N. Nandakumara Menon, Sr. Advocates, V.K. Sunil, P.B. Ajoy, C.A. Chacko, Anil Thomas, (T), K.V. Rashmi, P. Martin Jose, P. Prijith, Thomas P. Kuruvilla, P.B. Ajoy, Syam J. Sam, Abdul Jaleel Onath, S. Smitha (Parakkal), Vinod Singh Cheriyan, T.M. Khalid, K.P. Susmitha, V.K. Jasila Beevi, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. These writ petitions bring to the fore the general and widespread aversion amongst our citizenry to taxes. Ingenious and varied are the submissions advanced before courts in their attempts to claim the benefit of exemption clauses that would insulate them from a levy. What is missed out often, in these desperate attempts, is the general principle in taxation law that exemption provisions in a taxing statute, unlike the charging provisions therein, are interpreted strictly in favour of the revenue and against an assessee. A court hearing arguments challenging the constitutional validity of an exemption provision in a fiscal statute, strives to uphold its validity and it is only if it is impossible to do so that the provision is declared unconstitutional. The burden on those who assail the statutory provision is therefore quite heavy.

2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are self-financing educational institutions. They impugn the demand of property tax from them under Section 203 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act/Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 [both Acts hereinafter together referred to as the 'Acts']. It is stated that as per the said provision, there is a levy of tax contemplated in respect of all buildings, save those that are exempted from the levy of tax under Section 207/Section 235 of the respective Acts. Section 207/Section 235 enumerates the classes of buildings that are exempted from the levy. In these writ petitions, the exemption clause that is challenged as discriminatory is Section 207(b)/Section 235(b) of the Acts, which reads as under:

Exemption from Tax, Cess etc.-- (1) The following buildings and lands shall be exempted from property tax as may be levied under S.203/S.233 and service cess as may be levied under sub-section (2) of Section 200/sub-section (4) of S.230, namely:

(a) …..................................................................

(b) building exclusively used for educational purposes or allied purposes under the ownership of educational institutions owned by the Government, aided or functioning with the financial assistance of the Government and the hostel buildings wherein the students of the said institutions reside;

3. It is the case of the petitioners that inasmuch as their educational institutions are not housed in buildings owned by the Government or aided or functioning under the financial assistance from the Government, they are denied the benefit of the exemption granted under the Acts. They therefore impugn the exemption provision as discriminatory inasmuch as it discriminates between Government/aided educational institutions on the one hand, and unaided educational institutions on the other. It is pointed out that unaided educational institutions were not liable to pay tax under the Act till 7.10.2009, when the exemption provision was amended to exclude the said institutions from the ambit of the exemption. It is also pointed out that some of the educational institutions were established at a time when the buildings were exempted from the levy of property tax under the Acts.

4. Through their counter affidavit filed in these writ petitions, the State Government has justified the classification effected between the two classes of educational institutions in the following manner:

“7. It is submitted that primarily, education is the responsibility of the State Government. Kerala's unparalleled achievements in human development indicators are mainly attributed to the State's public interventions in health and education sectors. Education has always had a central role in determining Kerala's performance in social development.

8. Education is the catalytic tool that can transform the future of our children and youth and it plays a predominant role in this modern world. Education serves as the basis of a dignified life and this responsibility is shouldered by the Government in the interests of the larger public. Therein comes the validity of exemption to such institutions owned or financed by the Government. Government have decided to exempt educational institutions owned by the Government, aided or functioning with the financial assistance of the Government from levying of property tax considering the fact that they contribute largely in the education sector without any monetary benefit with a sole aim of making students well educated. In the case of private schools, they function mostly as a profitable entrepreneurship than a non-profit institution. Buildings and hostels used for the purpose of education and stay owned or financed by Government and owned by private management of self financing educational institution cannot be treated alike. Hence those buildings owned by private management cannot be granted exemption from property tax.

9. It is submitted that the tax is on the 'property' that is put to use for educational purposes. It involves both 'use' and ownership. The term 'use' needs to be considered in a larger perspective as it includes purpose and objective as well. The properties of the educational institutions in the private/self financing sector cannot be held to be exempted from the tax which adds to revenue of the Local Self Government Institutions. As outlined in Section 207(1)(b) & Section 235(b), those are the buildings owned by the Government, aided or functioning with the financial assistance of the Government which are exempted. It is submitted that those are supported by the Government and their exemption from the payment of property tax cannot be held to be invalid.

10. It is submitted that it can be said that buildings and hostel constructed and maintained by using public money are exempted from payment of property tax and the people as a whole are the beneficiary of this exemption. If property tax is imposed on buildings and hostels owned by the Government, that amount also will be met from the public fund. More importantly, exemption given to the institutions, functioning under the administrative control of the Government are subject to Government auditing of funds and expenditure and it is a statutory process in Government institutions unlike in the case of self-financing institutions.

11. As property tax is one of the main sources of revenue of Local Self Government Institutions, more exemption of property tax for unaided or private educational institutions and for those educational institutions including professional colleges in the higher education sector may lead to huge financial loss to Local Self Government Institutions and ultimately to the public as the very functioning of any institution depends on a proper and accountable inflow and outflow of money. Education including basic and upto Higher Secondary level forms the basis of choice of further courses and career opportunities ahead.

12. Therefore, the basic premise upon which exemption is granted for “buildings exclusively used for educational purposes or allied purposes under the ownership of educational institutions owned by the Government, aided or functioning with the financial assistance of Government and the hostel buildings where the students of the said institutions reside” as envisaged in Section 207(1)(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Section 235(b) of the Kerala Municipality Act stands valid and cannot be challenged.

13. It may be noted that the intention of Sections 207(1)(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act of 1994 and Section 235(b) of the Kerala Municipality Act of 1994 is to secure the economic prospects of the institutions financed by the Government as well as those transferred to the Local Self Government Institutions with the goal of ensuring education to the needy.

14. According to Section 235 (h) and 207 (1)(h) of the Kerala Municipality Act of 1994 and Kerala Panchayat Raj Act of 1994 respectively “................. building attached to the institutions handed over to Local Self Government Institutions by the Government” are exempted from property tax, cess etc.

15. It is pertinent to note that apart from the buildings belong to educational institutions, hospitals providing treatment for patients free of cost, buildings providing shelter to destitutes and orphans, libraries and reading rooms open to public, burial and burning grounds, small residential buildings of which the owner is under poverty line etc. also are exempted from property tax.”

5. The main issue to be considered in these writ petitions is whether the exemption provision under the Acts is discriminatory in its grant of exemption to only such buildings that are used for educational purposes and under the ownership of educational institutions owned by the Government or aided or functioning with the financial assistance from the Government. To answer the said issue, it would be apposite to go through the decided case laws to understand the principles that are applied by courts while examining a challenge to a statutory provision on the ground of discrimination. In the decision in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar [1959 SCR 279], the Court enumerated the principles thus:

“ … The principle enunciated above has been consistently adopted and applied in subsequent cases. The decisions of this Court further establish —

(a) that a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself;

(b) that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles;

(c) that it must be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds;

(d) that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest;

(e) that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation; and

(f) that while good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a legislature are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of the court on which the classification may reasonably be regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and un-known reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation. (at page 297, 298)”

6. Similarly, in Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agricultural I.T.O. [AIR 1963 SC 591], a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, while upholding a classification effected between agriculturists in Travancore and Malabar Districts of Kerala, for the purposes of levy of agricultural income tax, observed as follows:

“(7) ….............................. ........................... …..........................

Though a law ex facie appears to treat all that fall within a class alike, if in effect it operates unevenly on persons or property similarly situated, it may be said that the law offends the equality clause. It will then be the duty of the court to scrutinize the effect of the law carefully to ascertain its real impact on the persons or property similarly situated. Conversely, a law may treat persons who appears to be similarly situate differently; but on investigation they may be found not to be similarly situated. To state it differently, it is not the phraseology of a statute that governs the situation but the effect of the law that is decisive. If there is equality and uniformity within each group, the law will not be condemned as discriminative, though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of a peculiar situation some included in a class get an advantage over others, so long as they are not singled out for special treatment. Taxation law is not an exception to this doctrine : vide Purshottam Govindji v. B. N. Desai, 1955-2 SCR 887: ( (S) AIR 1956 SC 20) and K.T. Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala, 1961- 3 SCR 77 : (AIR 1961 SC 552). But in the application of the principles, the courts, in view of the inherent complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse element, permit a larger discretion to the Legislature in the matter of classification, so long it adheres to the fundamental principles underlying the said doctrine. The power of the Legislature to classify is of "wide range and flexibility" so that it can adjust its system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways.

(8) ….............................. …........................... …............................

(9) ….............................. …........................... …............................

(10) But it is said that the mode of ascertaining the average annual income for the purpose of finding the rate is arbitrary and unreasonable and that discrimination is inherent in such a law adopting such arbitrary process. This argument is elaborated thus: The major income of the petitioner's family is from arecanut, pepper and coconut; the said crops are gathered between the months of November and March; the season for harvesting arecanut in Kasaragod Taluk is from November to March; the whole year's pepper and coconut are gathered between the months of January and March; therefore, the income from arecanut, pepper and coconut accrued to the petitioner between November, 1 1956 and March 31, 1957, is the income for the entire year; but under the proviso to S. 2A of the Act, the said income is treated as the income for 5 months only, with the result that 24 months' income is treated as 17 months' income; this is an arbitrary assumption underlying the provision; instead it should have taken 12/24th of the total income as the average annual income. This arbitrary method of fixing the average annual income involves the payment of higher rate of tax by the assessees in Kasaragod Taluk as compared to the assessees in other parts of the State. It is suggested that a more reasonable course would have been to tax the assessees in the Madras area for the income that accrued to them during the 5 months by treating the said income as the income for the entire year commencing from April 1, 1956, and ending on March 31, 1957, and that in that event not only their income for the said period could not have escaped taxation but it would have also avoided the unjust treatment meted out to the in the rate of tax. Prima facie there appears to be some plausibility in this argument; but a closer examination discloses that though the method suggested may have been better than the method actually adopted, the hardship in individual cases cannot in any event be avoided.”

7. In State of Gujarat & Another v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad, etc. [(1974) 4 SCC 656], the Court dealt with classifications that are under-inclusive and held that in the context of economic legislations, a mere under-inclusion would not result in the death-knell of such laws on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution. The observations of the Court are at paragraphs 53 to 56, 66, 67 and 71, and are as follows:

“53. The equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. But laws may classify. And the very idea of classification is that of inequality. In tackling this paradox the Court has neither abandoned the demand for equality nor denied the legislative right to classify. It has taken a middle course. It has resolved the contradictory demands of legislative specialization and constitutional generality by a doctrine of reasonable classification. [See Joseph Tussman and Jacobusten Brook The Equal Protection of the Law, 37 California Rev 341] .

54. A reasonable classification is one which includes all who are similarly situated and none who are not. The question then is: what does the phrase “similarly situated” mean? The answer to the question is that we must look beyond the classification to the purpose of the law. A reasonable classification is one which includes all persons who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law. The purpose of a law may be either the elimination of a public mischief or the achievement of some positive public good.

55. A classification is under-inclusive when all who are included in the class are tainted with the mischief but there are others also tainted whom the classification does not include. In other words, a classification is bad as under-inclusive when a State benefits or burdens persons in a manner that furthers a legitimate purpose but does not confer the same benefit or place the same burden on others who are similarly situated. A classification is over-inclusive when it includes not only those who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose but others who are not so situated as well. In other words, this type of classification imposes a burden upon a wider range of individuals than are included in the class of those attended with mischief at which the law aims. Herod ordering the death of all male children born on a particular day because one of them would someday bring about his downfall employed such a classification.

56. The first question, therefore, is, whether the exclusion of establishments carrying on business or trade and employing less than 50 persons makes the classification under-inclusive, when it is seen that all factories employing 10 or 20 persons, as the case may be, have been included and that the purpose of the law is to get in unpaid accumulations for the welfare of the labour. Since the classification does not include all who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law, the classification might appear, at first blush, to be unreasonable. But the Court has recognised the very real difficulties under which legislatures operate — difficulties arising out of both the nature of the legislative process and of the society which legislation attempts perennially to re-shape — and it has refused to strike down indiscriminately all legislation embodying classificatory inequality here under consideration. Mr. Justice Holmes, in urging tolerance of under-inclusive classifications, stated that such legislation should not be disturbed by the Court unless it can clearly see that there is no fair reason for the law which would not require with equal force its extension to those whom it leaves untouched. [Missouri, K&T Rly v. May [194 US 267, 269]] What, then, are the fair reasons for nonextension? What should a court do when it is faced with a law making an under-inclusive classification in areas relating to economic and tax matters? Should it, by its judgment, force the legislature to choose between inaction or perfection?

xxx xxx xxx

66. That the legislation is directed to practical problems, that the economic mechanism is highly sensitive and complex, that many problems are singular and contingent that laws are not abstract propositions and do not relate to abstract units and are not to be measured by abstract symmetry, that exact wisdom and nice adaption of remedies cannot be required, that judgment is largely a prophecy based on meagre and uninterpreted experience, should stand as reminder that in this area the Court does not take the equal protection requirement in a pedagogic manner [ See “General Theory of Law and State”, p. 161] .

67. In the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial self-restraint if not judicial deference to legislative judgment. The legislature after all has the affirmative responsibility. The Courts have only the power to destroy, not to reconstruct. When these are added to the complexity of economic regulation, the uncertainty, the liability to error, the bewildering conflict of the experts, and the number of times the judges have been overruled by events — self-limitation can be seen to be the path to judicial wisdom and institutional prestige and stability. [See “General Theory of Law and State”, p. 161]

xxx xxx xxx

71. The Court must be aware of its own remoteness and lack of familiarity with local problems. Classification is dependent on the peculiar needs and specific difficulties of the community. The needs and difficulties of the community are constituted out of facts and opinions beyond the easy ken of the Court [ See “General Theory of Law and State”, p. 161] . It depends to a great extent upon an assessment of the local condition of these concerns which the legislature alone was competent to make.”

8. In V.C.Shukla v. State (Delhi Administration) [1980 (Suppl.) SCC 249], the Supreme Court elaborated on the issue as follows:

“11. In a diverse society and a large democracy such as ours where the expanding needs of the nation change with the temper of the times, it is extremely difficult for any legislation to make laws applicable to all persons alike. Some amount of classification is, therefore, necessary to administer various spheres of the activities of the State. It is well settled that in applying Article 14 mathematical precision or nicety or perfect equanimity are not required. Similarity rather than identity of treatment is enough. The courts should not make a doctrinaire approach in construing Article 14 so as to destroy or frustrate any beneficial legislation. What Article 14 prohibits is hostile discrimination and not reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. Furthermore, the legislature which is in the best position to understand the needs and requirements of the people must be given sufficient latitude for making selection or differentiation and so long as such a selection is not arbitrary and has a rational basis having regard to the object of the Act, Article 14 would not be attracted. That is why this Court has laid down that presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the onus lies upon the person who attacks the statute to show that there has been an infraction of the constitutional concept of equality. It has also been held that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality, the court is entitled to take into consideration matters of common knowledge, common report, the history of the times and all other facts which may be existing at the time of the legislation. Similarly, it cannot be presumed that the administration of a particular law would be done with an “evil eye and an unequal hand”. Finally, any person invoking Article 14 of the Constitution must show that there has been discrimination against a person who is similarly situate or equally circumstanced. In the case of State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya [AIR 1960 SC 1125 : 1961 (1) SCR 14 : 1961 (2) SCJ 334] Subba Rao, J., observed as follows:

“No discrimination can be made either in the privileges conferred or in the liabilities imposed. But these propositions conceived in the interests of the public, if logically stretched too far, may not achieve the high purpose behind them. In a society of unequal basic structure, it is well-nigh impossible to make laws suitable in their application to all the persons alike. So, a reasonable classification is not only permitted but is necessary if society should progress.”

9. In Venkateshwara Theatre v. State of A.P. [(1993) 3 SCC 677], where the legislature concerned had prescribed different rates of tax by classifying theatres into different classes, namely, air-conditioned, air-cooled, ordinary (other than airconditioned and air-cooled), permanent and semi-permanent and touring and temporary, it was contended that the classification effected was not perfect, in that, there could not be a further classification amongst theatres falling in the same class on the basis of the location of the theatre in each local area. Rejecting the said contention, the Supreme Court found as follows at paragraphs 20 and 23:

“20. Article 14 enjoins the State not to deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. The phrase “equality before the law” contains the declaration of equality of the civil rights of all persons within the territories of India. It is a basic principle of republicanism. The phrase “equal protection of laws” is adopted from the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The right conferred by Article 14 postulates that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Since the State, in exercise of its governmental power, has, of necessity, to make laws operating differently on different groups of persons within its territory to attain particular ends in giving effect to its policies, it is recognised that the State must possess the power of distinguishing and classifying persons or things to be subjected to such laws. It is, however, required that the classification must satisfy two conditions, namely, (i) it is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others; and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. It is not the requirement that the classification should be scientifically perfect or logically complete. Classification would be justified if it is not palpably arbitrary.

…........................... …...................................... …..........................................

xxx xxx xxx

23. Just as a difference in the treatment of persons similarly situate leads to discrimination, so also discrimination can arise if persons who are unequals, i.e. differently placed, are treated similarly. In such a case failure on the part of the legislature to classify the persons who are dissimilar in separate categories and applying the same law, irrespective of the differences, brings about the same consequence as in a case where the law makes a distinction between persons who are similarly placed. A law providing for equal treatment of unequal objects, transactions or persons would be condemned as discriminatory if there is absence of rational relation to the object intended to be achieved by the law.”

10. In Union of India and Others v. N.S. Rathnam and Sons – [(2015) 10 SCC 681], while upholding the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court, which held that when the benefit of a concessional rate under the Customs Act is restored by a notification, there cannot be any discriminatory treatment to some persons who fall in the same category, it was observed as follows at paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said judgment:

“13. It is, thus, beyond any pale of doubt that the justiciability of particular Notification can be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14, which is treated as basic feature of the Constitution, ensures equality before the law or equal protection of laws. Equal protection means the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances, both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed. Therefore, if the two persons or two sets of persons are similarly situated/placed, they have to be treated equally. At the same time, the principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position. It would mean that the State has the power to classify persons for legitimate purposes. The legislature is competent to exercise its discretion and make classification. Thus, every classification is in some degree likely to produce some inequality but mere production of inequality is not enough. Article 14 would be treated as violated only when equal protection is denied even when the two persons belong to same class/category. Therefore, the person challenging the act of the State as violative of Article 14 has to show that there is no reasonable basis for the differentiation between the two classes created by the State. Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification.

14. What follows from the above is that in order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differential which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) that, that differential must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. If the Government fails to support its action of classification on the touchstone of the principle whether the classification is reasonable having an intelligible differentia and a rational basis germane to the purpose, the classification has to be held as arbitrary and discriminatory....................................................................”

11. Applying these tests for reasonable classification, the Supreme Court, in a recent decision in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited v. Union of India - [JT 2019 (8) SC 429] = [(2019) 8 SCC 416], rejected the challenge to the provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code that treated real estate developers as financial debtors. The contention that treating real estate developers as financial debtors was discriminatory inasmuch as unequals were treated as equals, was repelled through the following reasoning:

“40. It is impossible to say that classifying real estate developers is not founded upon an intelligible differentia which distinguishes them from other operational creditors, nor is it possible to say that such classification is palpably arbitrary having no rational relation to the objects of the Code. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioners that if at all real estate developers were to be brought within the clutches of the Code, being like operational debtors, at best they could have been brought in under this rubric and not as financial debtors. Here again, what is unique to real estate developers vis--vis operational debts, is the fact that, in operational debts generally, when a person supplies goods and services, such person is the creditor and the person who has to pay for such goods and services is the debtor. In the case of real estate developers, the developer who is the supplier of the flat/apartment is the debtor inasmuch as the home buyer/allottee funds his own apartment by paying amounts in advance to the developer for construction of the building in which his apartment is to be found. Another vital difference between operational debts and allottees of real estate projects is that an operational creditor has no interest in or stake in the corporate debtor, unlike the case of an allottee of a real estate project, who is vitally concerned with the financial health of the corporate debtor, for otherwise, the real estate project may not be brought to fruition. Also, in such event, no compensation, nor refund together with interest, which is the other option, will be recoverable from the corporate debtor. One other important distinction is that in an operational debt, there is no consideration for the time value of money – the consideration of the debt is the goods or services that are either sold or availed of from the operational creditor. Payments made in advance for goods and services are not made to fund manufacture of such goods or provision of such services. Examples given of advance payments being made for turnkey projects and capital goods, where customisation and uniqueness of such goods are important by reason of which advance payments are made, are wholly inapposite as examples vis--vis advance payments made by allottees. In real estate projects, money is raised from the allottee, being raised against consideration for the time value of money. Even the total consideration agreed at a time when the flat/apartment is nonexistent or incomplete, is significantly less than the price the buyer would have to pay for a ready/complete flat/apartment, and therefore, he gains the time value of money. Likewise, the developer who benefits from the amounts disbursed also gains from the time value of money. The fact that the allottee makes such payments in instalments which are co-terminus with phases of completion of the real estate project does not any the less make such payments as payments involving “exchange”, i.e. advances paid only in order to obtain a flat/apartment. What is predominant, insofar as the real estate developer is concerned, is the fact that such instalment payments are used as a means of finance qua the real estate project. One other vital difference with operational debts is the fact that the documentary evidence for amounts being due and payable by the real estate developer is there in the form of the information provided by the real estate developer compulsorily under RERA. This information, like the information from information utilities under the Code, makes it easy for home buyers/allottees to approach the NCLT under Section 7 of the Code to trigger the Code on the real estate developer’s own information given on its webpage as to delay in construction, etc. It is these fundamental differences between the real estate developer and the supplier of goods and services that the legislature has focused upon and included real estate developers as financial debtors. This being the case, it is clear that there cannot be said to be any infraction of equal protection of the laws.”

12. On an analysis of the precedents referred above, and applying the principles discernible therefrom to the facts in the instant cases, it can be seen that the tax concessions envisaged under the Acts are intended to provide a level playing field for Government/aided educational institutions on the one hand and the self-financing educational institutions on the other. Tax concessions have been granted to the former category, keeping in mind the role played by them in discharging the sovereign obligation of the State to provide education, despite the economic limitations faced by them. It is trite that Government and Government Aided Educational institutions are subjected to a different system of control when compared to Unaided Educational institutions that do not function under the restrictions imposed on the former category in respect of collection of fees and payment of salaries/wages to teaching and non-teaching staff. In that sense therefore, this is not a case where there is an under-inclusion in a classification that is effected for the purposes of extension of the benefit of exemption. It is simply a case of exemption granted to persons in an identified class, with those left out forming a distinct and separately identifiable class. In other words, the classification brought about is between unequals, and when viewed against the objective of the provision granting exemption, which is to provide relief from the financial burden imposed through taxation, it cannot be said that the classification effected has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the legislature through the exemption provision.

13. I also note that a challenge to the very same provision under the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, on the ground of alleged discrimination, was considered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment reported in Sreenarayana Gurukulam College of Engineering, Kolenchery v. State of Kerala and Another - [2016 (4) KHC 482], where the learned Judge observed as follows at paragraphs 8, 9 and 10:

“8. In the instant case whether the buildings and hostels for the purpose of education and stay owned or financed by the Government and owned by the private management of Selffinancing Educational Institutions can be treated alike. Whether there is any intelligible differentia which distinguishes the buildings owned by the Government and owned by private management of self-financing institutions. The matter in issue involved in the instant case falls exclusively in the domain of taxation and has no connection with the academic affairs. Therefore, the extent of enquiry is confined to the fiscal status of institutions only. What is the basis of the classification? In my view, this classification is made, by granting exemption to the building owned or financed by the Government, on the basis that public money is utilised for the construction and maintenance of such buildings; whereas in the case of the buildings and hostels owned and maintained by private management of self-financing institutions, the public money has not been involved. Put it differently, this exemption is a privilege granted to the public money and it can be said that buildings and hostels constructed and maintained by using public money is exempted from payment of property tax and the people, as a whole, is the beneficiary of this exemption. If property tax is imposed on buildings and hostels owned by the Government, that amount also will be taken from the public fund. More importantly, exemption is given to the institutions, functioning under the administrative control of the Government and to which Governmental auditing of funds and expenditure is made compulsory, whereas, the case of self-financing institutions, such control and auditing of funds are absent.

9. Secondly, the expression 'self financing' itself shows that such institutions are having their own fee structure, which cannot be compared with fees of a Government College. Though, i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t is regulated and controlled by the above referred Statute, it is much higher than that of Government Colleges, wherein a nominal fee alone is collected from the students and certain rooms are reserved for students from socially and economically backward classes, in the hostels owned by the Government. In my view, this classification on the aforesaid basis is a rational one and there is an intelligible differentia in this classification. Self-financing Educational Institutions form a separate class, different from the Educational Institutions owned and financed or aided by the Government and the discrimination made under Section 207(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act is marked by intelligible differentia. 10. Thirdly, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's institution is also governed and regulated by the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Nonexploitative fee and other measures to ensure equity and excellence in professional Education) Act, 2006. The preamble of the above Act says that it is an Act to provide for prohibition of capitation fee, regulation of admission, fixation of non-exploitative fee, allotment of seats to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other socially and economically backward classes and other measures to ensure equity and excellence in professional education and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The said Act is a preventive legislation to curb illegality and exploitation in the functioning of the self-financing institutions. Merely on the reason that the receipt of capitation fee is prohibited and the admission and fixation of fee are regulated, it cannot be said that the self-financing colleges are owned or administered by the Government and the financial transactions are subjected to governmental scrutiny. So, such institutions are not entitled to get the privilege of the institution owned and administered by the Government. The petitioner institution is not the creation of a Statute; but the functioning of the institute alone is regulated by several Statutes, covering different field of activity and the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Nonexploitative fee and other measures to ensure equity and excellence in professional Education) Act, 2006 is one among various such Statutes and on that reason the self-financing Educational Institutions cannot be equated with the Educational Institutions owned and administered by the Government, having the privilege under Section 207 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The concept of 'sovereign immunity' is the basis of this privilege of tax exemption granted to the institutions owned or aided and administered by the Government.” 14. I am in complete agreement with the aforesaid findings of the learned Single Judge as regards the absence of discrimination and hence, for the reasons stated in the said judgment, read together with the reasons given in this judgment, I dismiss the writ petitions in their challenge against the constitutional validity of Section 207(b) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act/Section 235(b) of the Kerala Municipality Act. While with the above declaration, the challenge to the assessment orders, demand notices and revenue recovery notices would also have to be dismissed, I note that there could be cases where assessees want to prefer statutory appeals against the quantification of their tax liability. I therefore quash the assessment orders, demand notices and revenue recovery notices impugned in these writ petitions only for the limited purpose of enabling the respondent Panchayats/Municipalities to issue fresh assessment orders and demand notices to the petitioners showing the basis of computation of tax and interest therein. On receiving fresh assessment order and demand notices, the petitioners may, if aggrieved by the computation aspects of the tax, approach the Appellate authorities under the Statute for a redressal of their grievances. Otherwise, the tax and interest shall be paid to the respective Panchayats/Muncipalities within a month of service of the demand notices on them.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

22-09-2020 Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd., Through Madhavdas K., Authorised Signatory Bec Nandinin Road Industrial Area, Chhattisgarh Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Senior Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 M/s. NTC Infra & Engineering Private Limited Represented by its Director S. Muthusamy, Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Jai Bharath College of Management & Engineering Technology, Rep. by Its Chairman, Ernakulam & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 John Joseph, Advocate, Chairman Voters Alliance, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 K. Chandran & Others Versus The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
03-09-2020 M/s. Khushee Construction through its Power of Attorney Holder, Patna Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
25-08-2020 The Mining & Engineering Corporation Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
21-08-2020 Posh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Official Liquidator, Liquidator of Transpower Engineering Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-08-2020 M/s. Metal Tubes & Rolling Mills, Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri (East) & Another Versus The Official Liquidator, Liquidator of Transpower Engineering Ltd. (In Liqn.) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-08-2020 Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt Ltd & Another. Versus Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Defence & Another. High Court of Delhi
13-08-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Higher Education, Chennai Versus Syed Ammal Engineering College, Rep. By its Administrative Officer, Ramanathapuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 M. Raj Sekhar Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Public Health & Municipal Engineering Dept. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-07-2020 Mahrishi Arvind Institute of Engineering, Rajasthan Versus Ranjit Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, R. Natraj Versus M/s. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited, Represented by its Director, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-07-2020 Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering & Technology & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
06-07-2020 K. Prem Chander & Another Versus M/s. Hella India Automotive Private Limited Formerly known as FTZ Engineering (P) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 Rohini Gogoi (Under Suspension) Versus State of Assam Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Health Engineering Deptt. High Court of Gauhati
15-06-2020 ISTTM India Private Limited Versus Engineering Staff College of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-06-2020 K.G. Purushothaman Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Local Self Government Institution, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
20-05-2020 Dill Versus Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
19-05-2020 Travancore Devaswom Board, Rep. by Its Secretary Versus The Deputy Examiner, Local Fund Audit, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
11-05-2020 South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd. (Seamec Ltd.) Versus Oil India Limited Supreme Court of India
11-05-2020 Posco Engineering & Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sinew Developers Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
29-04-2020 R (on the application of Palestine Solidarity Campaign Ltd. & Another) Versus Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government United Kingdom Supreme Court
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
17-03-2020 M/s. Rite Choice Foundations and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, C.K. Sridhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 R. Pushpa Latha & Others Versus The Secretary, Department of Local body and Municipal Administration, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Basheerbagh, Hyderabad through local branch at Khammam Versus F.R. Phillip High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Versus TOYO Engineering Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
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
04-03-2020 Vimal Versus Abbott healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
02-03-2020 M/s. Project Engineering Corporation Limited, Ernakulam, Represented by Manager (Administrations) Binu Jacob Versus M/s. Doshion Private Ltd., Ahmedabad, Represented by Its Director, Rakshit Doshi High Court of Kerala
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
17-02-2020 Nileshbhai Arvindbhai Gandhi, Director, Cube Construction Engineering Limited Versus State of Gujarat & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
13-02-2020 H.K. Meenakshy Ammal Versus State Bank of India Represented by Its Chief General Manager, Local Head Office, Rajaji Salai, Chennai & Others High Court of Kerala
10-02-2020 M/s. JV Engineering Associate, Civil Engineering Contractors, Represented by its Partner, S. Jaikumar Versus General Manager, CORE, Allahabad, Represented by Deputy Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification, Chennai, Egmore High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
06-02-2020 M/s. Shintec Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Authorised Signatory, Vanagaram Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) JJ Nagar Assessment Circle, Thirumangalam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Tarun Keshrichand Shah & Another Versus M/s. Kishore Engineering Company & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-02-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department, rep. by the Divisional Engineer (H) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division-1 Versus M/s. Jenefa Constructions, Civil Engineering Contractor, rep. by its Partner, M. Arunachalam High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 G. Balasubramani Versus The State Election Commissioner, Local Body Election, Koyambedu & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
29-01-2020 Vimal Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary/Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-01-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd. Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raipur
23-01-2020 C. Sarojini Devi Versus The Director of Local Fund Audits, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Nandanam, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. UB Engineering Limited, Rep. by its Power of Attorney G.D. Deshpande & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Tractebel Engineering Private Limited Versus Patnazi Power Limited National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
21-01-2020 The Indian Officer's Association, Chennai Versus M/s. Swaruba Engineering Construction Company Private Limited, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Meerut Development Authority Meerut Versus M/s Civil Engineering Construction Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-01-2020 State of AP Versus Devi Engineering & Construction High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-01-2020 M/s. Jullundur Engineering Complany, Jalandhar V/S Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
09-01-2020 Ajay Kumar Bishnoi, Former Managing Director, M/s. Tecpro Systems Ltd. Versus M/s. Tap Engineering, Rep. by Jawahar High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 M/s. Sathee Engineering Construction Company, Rep. by its Proprietor, Gopu Kumar, Kollam Versus Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Caparo Engineering India Limited V/S Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs and Excise, Ujjain Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
06-01-2020 Cochin Port Trust, Represented by Its Chairman & Others Versus Sea Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Duxton Hill, Singapore, Represented By Their Local Agents, Forbes Gokak Ltd., Patvolk Division, Cochin & Another High Court of Kerala
03-01-2020 Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Versus Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-01-2020 C. Narayanasamy (Deceased) & Others Versus The Executive Engineer, Agriculture Engineering Department, Tiruvannamalai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-01-2020 Raj Engineering Works and Others. V/S Indian Overseas Bank DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM
20-12-2019 Infant Jesus College of Engineering, Rep. by its Chair Person, A. Roselet Bai Versus The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 Lalita Samdani Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
18-12-2019 Standard Chartered Bank Versus Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
18-12-2019 M/s. Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Represented by its Authorized Representative, New Delhi Versus V.O.Chidambaram Port Trust High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-12-2019 Basava Engineering School of Technology Rep. by its Principal B.J. Patil Versus State of Karnataka Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Department of Technical Education High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
27-11-2019 Dr. Vimal Vincent Versus Revenue Division Officer/Sub Collector, Revenue Divisional Office, Irijalakuda, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
25-11-2019 National Highways Authority of India Versus Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
20-11-2019 M/s. Coverntry Springs and Engineering Company Limited & Others Versus M/s. Assets Reconstruction Company of India Limited (ARCIL) & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-11-2019 M/s. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kerla Water Authority High Court of Kerala
14-11-2019 Kuppusamy & Another Versus Uthirachy Madam, Nachiyar Kovil, by its local power agent Gopalan Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-11-2019 The Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Sub Regional Office, Kochi Versus M/s. Western Marine Engineering, Kochi, Represented by Its Managing Partner, K.T. Jacob High Court of Kerala
08-11-2019 T.M. Rasheed & Another Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
04-11-2019 Vimal Singh Versus The State of Goa, through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-10-2019 Vinod Kumar Jain Versus U.T. Administration, through Secretary Engineering, Chandigarh & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
26-10-2019 State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Thiruvanathapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
25-10-2019 Hindustan Engineering Training Centre, Rep. By its President 40, Chennai Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax –III 121, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-10-2019 S. Ravi & Others Versus Dev Anand Vijayan, Executive Director, The Management of Sri Karthikeya Spinning & Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., Formerly known as Perur Engineering Products, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-10-2019 M/s. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Represented herein by its authorized Signatory, Satish Padmanabhan Versus M/s. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US)LLC & Others High Court of Karnataka
17-10-2019 M/s. Teems Engineering Construction, Rep. by its Partner, G.R. Ravi, Chennai Versus The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, General Construction Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-10-2019 Vivek Verma Versus Ipro Sugar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
30-09-2019 M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory A. Vinolin Versus M/s. Shri Ramana Geavy Engineering P. Ltd., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-09-2019 A. George(died) & Another Versus The Member Secretary, Thanjavur Local Planning Authority, Ganapathy Nagar, Thanjavur & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-09-2019 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus FEPL Engineering (P) Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
23-09-2019 National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Others Versus M/s T.K. Engineering Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
13-09-2019 Pragatisheel Engineering Shramik Sangh Industrial Estate, Chhattisgarh Versus Simplex Castings Ltd, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2019 K. Dhanasekar Engineering Contractor Versus The Union of India, rep.by its General Manager Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2019 Manjeera Engineering & Construction Company Private Limited Versus Union of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-09-2019 Ethos Ltd. Versus Vijay H.A. Proprietor Interscap Engineering National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2019 Ashish Manik Versus Sr Marine & Offshore Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
05-09-2019 M/s. Velar Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director A.C. Vadhivelu Versus The Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Kanchipuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2019 IL&FS Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Formerly Maytas Infra Ltd., Represented by Prabhakar Reddy Versus Government of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2019 Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Versus A Consortium of Sime Darby Engineering Sdn. Bhd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-08-2019 Poongodi Versus The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Chennai Local Head Office, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2019 Dr. Bareet Chand Versus IMS Engineering College & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-07-2019 M.J.R. College of Engineering & Technology, Rep., by its Principal, G.V. Ramu & Another Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Corporation Bank, Damalacheruvu Rep., by its Branch Manager, Sudhir Kumar Dubey High Court of Andhra Pradesh
25-07-2019 M/s. Emkay Engineering Works, Represented by its Proprietor, R. Chinniah, Chennai Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Pattaravakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2019 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. RG City Centre Local Shopping Centre, Delhi Versus Ashok Kumar Tiwari & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-07-2019 Vimal & Others Versus Santosh & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
22-07-2019 Corsan Corviam Construccion S.A.-Sadhbhav Engineering Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade & Taxes High Court of Delhi