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



The Managing Director, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd., (SIPCOT), Egmore, Chennai v/s The Special Tahsildar, SIPCOT Unit Sriprumbudur & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- T T G INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27209TN1987PLC014169

Company & Directors' Information:- V I P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L25200MH1968PLC013914

Company & Directors' Information:- A L M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14100DL1996PLC129067

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17121MH1991PLC257750

Company & Directors' Information:- S R INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L29246PB1989PLC009531

Company & Directors' Information:- F E INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36100PB2003PTC026482

Company & Directors' Information:- N K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L91110GJ1987PLC009905

Company & Directors' Information:- T S I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U18101HR1997PTC034478

Company & Directors' Information:- B L A INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U10200MH1964PTC162314

Company & Directors' Information:- H G I INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40200WB1944PLC011754

Company & Directors' Information:- R P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100GJ2011PTC075812

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1974PLC007169

Company & Directors' Information:- A G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27300HR1991PTC031378

Company & Directors' Information:- H. J. INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120GJ2010PTC060769

Company & Directors' Information:- G R S INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000PB2005PLC029159

Company & Directors' Information:- T S L INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65999WB1994PLC065255

Company & Directors' Information:- M F B INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31401TN1989PLC018274

Company & Directors' Information:- V S P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ2005PTC011820

Company & Directors' Information:- M N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100TG2012PTC079737

Company & Directors' Information:- G I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312PB2010PTC033806

Company & Directors' Information:- E T C INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31200MP1995PLC009281

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC045572

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V E INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U03210TZ2006PLC012577

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21010MH1992PLC068885

Company & Directors' Information:- N G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L74140WB1994PLC065937

Company & Directors' Information:- S L INDUSTRIES P. LTD. [Active] CIN = U15331WB1989PTC047543

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L51909AS1985PLC002332

Company & Directors' Information:- T R A T INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25199KL1996PLC010148

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC067120

Company & Directors' Information:- N M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC175664

Company & Directors' Information:- S N L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17115RJ1994PTC008053

Company & Directors' Information:- J V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057081

Company & Directors' Information:- A R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27101HR1995PTC032569

Company & Directors' Information:- D V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049221

Company & Directors' Information:- C D INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH1996PLC101277

Company & Directors' Information:- G V INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2014PTC096387

Company & Directors' Information:- G S M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U02001DL2002PTC117443

Company & Directors' Information:- B G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U26921ML1980PLC001830

Company & Directors' Information:- P K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900DL2012PTC241654

Company & Directors' Information:- M D INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U91110GJ1994PTC022025

Company & Directors' Information:- L C INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15122UP2013PTC055697

Company & Directors' Information:- G. A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15435MH2005PTC151817

Company & Directors' Information:- P A S INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active in Progress] CIN = U17121TZ2005PTC012171

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039251

Company & Directors' Information:- M K J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19111UP1989PTC010468

Company & Directors' Information:- S S F INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25190BR1988PLC003160

Company & Directors' Information:- P B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120MP1994PTC008840

Company & Directors' Information:- R & M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24297TN1972PTC006185

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U21012WB1977PLC030854

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17117DL1995PTC064137

Company & Directors' Information:- M C INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U27106WB1993PLC058995

Company & Directors' Information:- D R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100WB2011PTC160058

Company & Directors' Information:- R. L. F. INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1983PLC015262

Company & Directors' Information:- U K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24241WB1988PTC044355

Company & Directors' Information:- M G I INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27310GJ2006PTC048707

Company & Directors' Information:- A D INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2008PTC131561

Company & Directors' Information:- V J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253KA2009PTC050226

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150WB1985PLC039217

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150WB1985PTC039217

Company & Directors' Information:- G R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300PB1996PTC018671

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15549WB2008PTC130116

Company & Directors' Information:- R S V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52399MH2008PTC180489

Company & Directors' Information:- K. A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14220JH2008PTC013409

Company & Directors' Information:- D K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202CH1994PLC014627

Company & Directors' Information:- D G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U36942WB1946PTC013526

Company & Directors' Information:- R I L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1993PTC052678

Company & Directors' Information:- I S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29100GJ2009PTC057308

Company & Directors' Information:- B M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17000MH1997PTC109621

Company & Directors' Information:- R V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ1995PTC006398

Company & Directors' Information:- B N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120AS1994PTC004273

Company & Directors' Information:- A J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH2004PTC145040

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. A INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01549TZ1997PTC007927

Company & Directors' Information:- C R I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29120TZ2002PTC010129

Company & Directors' Information:- A C T INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC018724

Company & Directors' Information:- G B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29220PN2011PTC139883

Company & Directors' Information:- S D B INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MP1996PLC010394

Company & Directors' Information:- M M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31300CT2008PTC020916

Company & Directors' Information:- A C INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29299WB2006PTC109474

Company & Directors' Information:- K M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC043295

Company & Directors' Information:- C J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25209MH1998PTC116707

Company & Directors' Information:- N P INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15549PB1989PLC009426

Company & Directors' Information:- J. L. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29141MP2008PTC020731

Company & Directors' Information:- I K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100MH2010PTC199474

Company & Directors' Information:- H. D. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310MH2011PTC216080

Company & Directors' Information:- R. D. G. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26960DL2008PTC182480

Company & Directors' Information:- R B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28999DL2008PTC177248

Company & Directors' Information:- H & H INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34100DL2010PTC204604

Company & Directors' Information:- M J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15203KA2011PTC060675

Company & Directors' Information:- B R V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32301UP1995PTC018704

Company & Directors' Information:- A. G. INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25201UP1994PLC017291

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15204AS1993PLC003930

Company & Directors' Information:- I P M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25200DL1995PLC068554

Company & Directors' Information:- M R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900UP2008PTC036443

Company & Directors' Information:- R D I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1995PTC065508

Company & Directors' Information:- J G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L15141WB1983PLC035931

Company & Directors' Information:- V G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15139JK2015PTC004570

Company & Directors' Information:- S N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29211UP1951PTC002319

Company & Directors' Information:- K G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29130WB1951PTC019868

Company & Directors' Information:- N S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74120UP2012PTC053986

Company & Directors' Information:- W W I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29300MH1997PTC112589

Company & Directors' Information:- D U INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29230GJ2016PTC091588

Company & Directors' Information:- S R P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U00061BR1984PLC002023

Company & Directors' Information:- C P INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29303MP1949PTC000846

Company & Directors' Information:- J B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH2013PTC245506

Company & Directors' Information:- S J V INDUSTRIES LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U15421WB1982PLC035521

Company & Directors' Information:- V V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1980PTC010427

Company & Directors' Information:- K K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65100DL1982PTC013046

Company & Directors' Information:- A T C INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27109AS1984PLC002201

Company & Directors' Information:- N V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1953PTC020952

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31908AS1987PTC002804

Company & Directors' Information:- L K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291MH2012PTC233546

Company & Directors' Information:- G S C INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U92114DL1956PTC002616

Company & Directors' Information:- G G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27320UP1969PTC003282

Company & Directors' Information:- K S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31909MH1960PTC011707

Company & Directors' Information:- P R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U21014DL1971PTC005738

Company & Directors' Information:- R K I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29190DL2012PTC233413

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25202AS1988PTC003132

Company & Directors' Information:- S G R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25199WB1948PTC016397

Company & Directors' Information:- K R INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25190KA2012PTC062367

Company & Directors' Information:- Y K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19115UP2012PTC051151

Company & Directors' Information:- E S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN2012PTC086119

Company & Directors' Information:- I B INDUSTRIES LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28992WB1990PLC050469

Company & Directors' Information:- V I INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36934WB1951PLC019890

Company & Directors' Information:- J M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U05002UP1952PTC002456

Company & Directors' Information:- L F INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291UP2015PTC068602

Company & Directors' Information:- A K S INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27201WB1946PTC013433

Company & Directors' Information:- V M V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26990GJ2013PTC076945

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U29248PN1948PLC001948

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20232AS1980PTC001853

Company & Directors' Information:- V N R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21090AP2012PTC081525

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1944PTC011764

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1946PTC000938

Company & Directors' Information:- G I P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52605MH2015PTC263962

Company & Directors' Information:- C. L. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109RJ2014PTC045306

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH2014PTC254820

Company & Directors' Information:- S. B. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900PN2012PTC144181

Company & Directors' Information:- A & P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36935TG2014PTC095781

Company & Directors' Information:- C & N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40200TG2014PTC095187

Company & Directors' Information:- B S B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2013PTC088059

Company & Directors' Information:- R A R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2016PTC103684

Company & Directors' Information:- K S A B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2012PTC181903

Company & Directors' Information:- S V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36100JK2013PTC003808

Company & Directors' Information:- R D M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31100DL2013PTC252294

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1947PTC000501

Company & Directors' Information:- A V K INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100KA2012PTC066761

Company & Directors' Information:- S V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27104WB1960PTC024715

Company & Directors' Information:- J INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101OR1960PTC000388

Company & Directors' Information:- T & M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1956PLC002904

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51109BR1946PTC000228

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1946PTC005438

    Rev. Appln. Nos. 89 to 142 of 2018, 17 to 37 of 2019 in A.S. Nos. 67 to 70, 80 to 110, 144 & 146 to 163 of 2011 & 27 to 47 of 2016

    Decided On, 27 January 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

    For the Petitioner: Vijay Narayan, Advocate General, Assisted by Ramesh Venkatachalapathy (for SIPCOT), Advocate. For the Respondents: J. Balagopal, SGP, (for Special Tahsildar), G. Karthikeyan, A.S. Vijayanand, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Common Order:

N. Kirubakaran, J.

1. These review petitions have been filed by the SIPCOT to review the orders passed in A.S.Nos.67 to 70, 80 to 110, 144, 146 to 163 of 2011, pursuant to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C).Nos.28834 to 28854 of 2016 dated 03.11.2017.

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu acquired properties for the purpose of establishing industrial park at Sriperumbudur. For the said purpose, 4(1) notification was issued in the year 1998 for acquisition of 131.98.0 H of patta land and 4.01.5 H of poramboke land, altogether measuring 135.99.5 H at Thirumangalam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk.

3. Awards were passed fixing the land value at Rs.400/- per cent. The land owners filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to be referred to Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. About 126 cases were taken on file by the reference court. The Trial Court by a common judgment dated 14.11.2007 by relying on Ex.C.3/Sale Deed dated 15.04.1997 determined the land value at Rs.3500/- per cent, after deducting 40% towards development charges.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the Special Tahsildar, preferred 37 appeals in A.S.Nos.752 to 788 of 2010 against the order made in 37 LAOPs out of 126 LAOPS and this Court by an order dated 03.08.2012 determined the land value at Rs.15,620/- by relying upon Ex.C.4/Sale Deed dated 14.07.1997 by which 26 cents of land was sold. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as early as 25.08.2014 on the ground of delay. Pursuant to the same, SIPCOT deposited the amount as per the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.08.2012 made in 37 appeals viz., A.S.Nos.752 to 788 of 2010 and the land owners also withdrew the amount.

5. While so, the the Special Tahsildar again preferred another batch of appeals in A.S.Nos.67 to 70 of 2011, 80 to 110 of 2011 and 144, 146 to 163 of 2011 against the order made in 53 LAOPs out of 126 LAOPS and those appeals were also disposed by this Court by determining the land value at Rs.15,620/- per cent vide order dated 11.10.2013 by following the earlier order dated 03.08.2012. No SLP was preferred against the said order dated 11.10.2013 and therefore, it attained finality and the amount has also been deposited before the EP Court.

6. Again the Special Tahsildar preferred appeals against the order made in remaining 21 LAOPs (out of the total 126 LAOPs) in A.S.Nos.27 to 47 of 2016. The said Appeal suits were also disposed by this Court on 25.04.2016 determining the compensation at Rs.10,465/- per cent after deducting 33% towards development charges. Against the said order dated 25.04.2016, the SIPCOT preferred an SLP in SLP(C).Nos.28834 to 28854 of 2016 and they were disposed on 03.11.2017 giving liberty to the appellants to file a review petition before this Court. Thereafter, the present review petitions have been filed.

7. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General would submit that there is an error in the calculation of the land value as per the Ex.C.4 document. According to him, the value of land as specified in Ex.C.4 document relied on by this Court for fixing the land value in the earlier batch of cases is only the guideline value and it does not reflect the market value. In view of the same, the order has to be reviewed and the value of the land has to be reduced. Further, he would submit that even as per Ex.C.4 document, the value of the land was only shown as Rs.1,75,000/- and therefore, the guideline value of Rs.3,96,760/- should not have been relied on by this Court. He relied on the following decisions to support his contention:

1. (1994) 4 SCC 595, Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and Others.

2. (1996) 3 SCC 124, U.P.Jalnigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and Others.

3. (2006) 2 L.W 297, Sakthi & Co., v. Shree Desigachary.

4. (2009) 15 SCC 769, Lal Chand v. Union of India and Another.

5. (2010) 13 SCC 384, Radha Mudaliyar v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

6. (2014) 13 SCC 734, Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others v. Ajay Kumar and Others.

7. (2018) 3 SCC 278, Surender Singh v. State of Haryana and Others.

8. On the other hand, Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the scope of the review petition is very limited and it cannot be enlarged. He relied upon the following judgments to contend that the scope of review is very limited.

1. (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715, Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others

2. AIR 2000 SC 1650, Lilly Thomas v. Union of India and others

3. 2013 (4) CTC 882, Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had only permitted the petitioners to only rectify the error in the calculation of land value and the petitioners cannot re-argue the case as appeals. He would submit that based on the Ex.C.4/Sale Deed, dated 14.07.1997, if the value of the property is going to be redetermined, it would amount to re-appreciation of evidence and it would be beyond the scope of the review petition. The dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is only with regard to the error in the calculation of the land value. The property covered under Ex.C.4 document measuring an extent of 26 cents was sold at Rs.3,96,760/- and therefore, the value of land per cent would amount to Rs.3,96,760 / 26 = Rs.15,260/-. However, by mistake the value has been taken as Rs.15,620/- and after deducting 33% towards development charges fixed the compensation wrongly at Rs.10,465/- instead of Rs.10,224/- which is the correct value. If at all any error is there, it is only a calculation error as state above and the error viz., value of land per cent to be taken as Rs.10,224/- instead of Rs.10,465/- can be rectified.

9. The issue is as to whether the judgments passed by this Court could be reviewed. To understand the scope of review, it would be appropriate to extract Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

1.Application for review of judgment— (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

10.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715 has held that the judgment may be open to review only if there is mistake or error on the face of record. The relevant portion of the said decision is usefully extracted hereunder:-

"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

10. Considered in the light of this settled position we fine that Sharma, J. clearly over-stepped the jurisdiction vested in the court under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The observation of Sharma, J. that "accordingly", the order in question is reviewed and it is held that the decree in question is reviewed and it is held that the decree in question was of composite nature wherein both mandatory and prohibitory injunction were provided" and as such the case was covered by Article the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. While passing the impugned order, Sharma, J. found the order in Civil Revision dated 25.4.1989 as an erroneous decision, though without saying so in so many words. Indeed, while passing the impugned order Sharma, J. did record that there was a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record which not of such a nature, "Which had to be detected by a long drawn process of reasons" and proceeded to set at naught the order of Gupta, J. However, mechanical use of statutorily sanctified phrases cannot detract from the real import of the order passed in exercise of the review jurisdiction. Recourse to review petition in the facts and circumstances of the case was not permissible. The aggrieved judgment debtors could have approached the higher forum through appropriate proceedings, to assail the order of Gupta, J. and get it set aside but it was not open to them to seek a "review of the order of petition. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of Sharma, J. cannot be sustained and accordingly accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 6.3.1997."

10.2. In Lilly Thomas v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake and not to substitute views. The relevant portion of the said decision is usefully extracted hereunder:-

"55. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment."

10.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others reported in 2013 (4) CTC 882 has held that the review proceedings are not by way of an Appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. The relevant portion of the said decision is usefully extracted hereunder:-

"15. Review proceedings are not by way of an Appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. In Review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the Judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned Judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the Review Jurisdiction."

From the above, it is clear that the review petition cannot be an appeal remedy as the scope of review is very limited. Only if there is an error or a mistake apparent on the face of the record, review of an order can be made.

11. Heard the parties and perused the records.

12. It is seen from the records that as many as 126 cases have been taken on file at the instance of the respective land owners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Civil Court. Though the Civil Court relying upon Ex.C.3 document determined the value of the property at Rs.3500/- per cent after deducting 40% towards development charges, on appeal in 37 cases out of 126 cases, this Court by an order dated 03.08.2012 in A.S.Nos.752 to 788 of 2010 determined the value of land per cent as per Ex.C.4 at Rs.15,620/-. In Ex.C.4 document, though the land value was shown as Rs.1,75,000/-, the Registrar refused to register the document stating that the property had been under valued and thereafter, the stamp duty was paid as per the guideline value of Rs.3,96,760/-. Based on the said value, the learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 03.08.2012 determined the value of one cent at Rs.15,620/- and after deducting 33% towards development charges, calculated the compensation to be paid at Rs.10,465/- per cent. Against the said order, SIPCOT preferred SLP.Nos.13281 to 13317 of 2014 and the SLPs were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25.08.2014 on the ground of delay. Review Petitions (Civil) Nos.2898 to 2934 of 2014 to review the dismissal order dated 25.08.2014 were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 13.01.2015. The entire compensation amount was deposited before the Civil Court and land owners had withdrawn the amount.

13. In the other batch namely, A.S.Nos.67 to 70 of 2011, 80 to 110 of 2011 and 144, 146 to 163 of 2011 filed against the judgment of the Civil Court in 53 LAOPs also, the land value had been fixed at Rs.10,465/- by an order dated 11.10.2013 following the earlier judgment of this Court dated 03.08.2012 and no SLPs have been filed and the amount has been deposited before the EP court.

14. Against the judgment passed by the reference Court in 21 LAOPs, A.S.Nos.27 to 47 of 2016 were filed. The said appeals were also disposed by a common Judgment dated 25.04.2016 following the earlier order by fixing the land value at Rs.10,465/-.

15. It is seen from the above, though a judgment was passed by the Civil Court in 126 cases in LAOP.Nos.34/2003 to 261/2005 on 14.11.2007, the SIPCOT/Spl. Tahsildar filed Appeal Suits in three different batches. As far as one batch of 37 cases in A.S.Nos.752 to 788/2010 is concerned, it attained finality before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the parties also withdrew the amount after deposits were made by the SIPCOT. Only in the remaining LAOPs viz., 53 + 21 = 74 cases alone SLPs were preferred and they were disposed on 03.11.2017 with a direction to file a review petition with regard to the calculation error occurred on the basis of Ex.C.2. Though the document has been stated in the order as Ex.C.2, it is only Ex.C.4/Sale Deed, dated 14.07.1997 which is the basis for calculating the land value. Though the parties showed the value of the land under Ex.C.4 document at Rs.1,75,000/-, the said document was not registered as the Registrar was of the opinion that the property was undervalued. Therefore, balance stamp duty was paid for the land value at Rs.3,96,760/-. On the basis of the land value at Rs.3,96,760/-, only this Court determined the value of the land per cent at Rs.15,260 = 396760/26. Ex.C.4 document was executed conveying 26 cents of land and therefore, the value of land per cent amounts to Rs.15,260/-. If at all, any error is there, as rightly pointed out by Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the respondents, it is only with regard to the value of the land covered by Ex.C.4. Instead of taking the value at Rs.15,260/- per cent, this Court had mistakenly taken the value at Rs.15,620/- and after deducting 33% towards development charges determined the compensation at Rs.10,465/-. Factually, the value of land per cent is only Rs.15,260/- and after deducting 33% towards development charges, the value of land per cent would be Rs.10,224/- which is only the calculation error.

16. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General would point out from Ex.C.4 document that only a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- has been shown as the value of land and not a sum of Rs.3,96,760/- as contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and therefore, Rs.1,75,000/- should be taken as land value covered by Ex.C.4. If the said contention raised by the learned Advocate General is to be accepted, it would amount to re-appreciating the evidence which is beyond the scope of the review petition. Moreover, it would also be beyond the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that there is only an obvious calculation error. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is usefully extracted hereunder:-

"Learned Senior Counsel points out that even if all the other contentions are not accepted, in the matter of calculation of value on the basis of the relied upon document C2, there is an obvious calculation error.

If that be the situation, it is always open to the petitioner(s) to point out the same before the High Court.

Therefore, special leave petitions are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner(s) to file review within thirty days from today, in which case, the same may not be dismissed on the ground of delay."

Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the error in the value of the land per cent is rectified as Rs.10,224/- instead of Rs.10,465/-.

17. There is no dispute with regard to dictum laid in the judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate General with regard to the market value of the property which declare that the guideline value cannot be market value. However, the said argument cannot be appreciated in review petitions. If such argument is accepted, it would amount to substituting the view by giving reasons. If at all, it may be a good ground to be used in the appeals before the higher forum and not in the review petitions. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate General would not be of any use.

18. In the instant case, no mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record could be found. Even as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is only a calculation error. As already stated above, the calculation error is only with regard to the value of the land. While calculating the land value based on Ex.C.4 document, instead of taking the value at Rs.15,260/- per cent, this Court had mistakenly taken the value at Rs.15,620/- and after deducting 33% towards development charges determined the compensation at Rs.10,465/-. Factually, the value of land per cent is only Rs.15,260/- and after deducting 33% towards development charges, the value of land per cent would be Rs.10,224/- which is only the calculation error.

19. With the above observation, the review petitions are dismissed holding that there is no ground made out by the review petitioners to review the orders.

20. Though the review petitions have been filed, what is to be noted is that the lands were acquired as early as in the year 1988 and the awards have been passed and the cases were referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 2003. The Civil Court disposed of the LAOPs as early as on 14.11.2007. Thereafter, out of 126 cases, 37 cases were appealed and they were disposed as early as 03.08.2012 determining the value at Rs.15,620/- per cent and after deducting 33% towards development charges, Rs.10,465/- per cent was determined as compensation and the said amount was also paid to the parties. Again the judgment passed in 37 LAOPs have been appealed against and they were disposed on 11.10.2013 determining the very same amount of Rs.10,465/- as compensation. Thereafter, the orders made in the remaining LAOPs have been appealed against in A.S.Nos.27 to 47 of 2016 and they were disposed on 25.04.2016. Special Leave Petitions have been filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the order dated 03.11.2017 came to be passed to file a review before this Court.

21. From the above, it is clear that for more than two decades, the parties have not seen the colour of the coin and they have been made to run from pillar to post. Moreover, one group of 37 land owners covered by the judgment dated 03.08.2012 passed in A.S.Nos.752 to 788 of 2010 alone enjoyed the benefit of compensation at the rate of Rs.10,465/- per cent, as the Government had already disbursed the amount. Whereas, the remaining land owners have been discriminated by different treatment. If the authorities were diligent, they would have filed appeals in all the cases in a batch. However in the instant case, the appeals were filed in three batches viz., 37 appeals in the year 2010, 53 appeals in the year 2011 and 21 appeals in the year 2016 which is detrimental to the interest of the land owners for no fault of them. The land owners who lost their property have not enjoyed the fruits even after two decades and it would be impossible for them to buy same extent of property as on today with the compensation provided by the Government.

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2011) 8 SCC 161, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and Others had directed payment of Compound Interest for not complying with the Court's order, since by non-complying the order, the other side is unjustly enriched. It was further held therein that a party cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong and observed that unless Courts disgorge all benefits that a party availed by obstruction or delays or noncompliance, there will always be incentive for non-compliance and the party deprived of the benefits should be compensated by way of Compound Interest. Paragraphs 149, 150 and 197 of the judgment are usefully extracted hereunder:-

"149. It is settled principle of law that no one can take advantage of his own wrong. Unless courts disgorge all benefits that a party availed by obstruction or delays or non-compliance, there will always be incentive for non compliance, and parties are ingenious enough to come up with all kinds of pleas and other tactics

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

to achieve their end because they know that in the end the benefit will remain with them. 150. Whatever benefits a person has had or could have had by not complying with the judgment must being disgorged and paid to the judgment creditor and not, allowed to be retained by the judgment-debtor. This is the bounden duty and obligation of the court. ..... ..... 197. The other aspect which has been dealt with in great details is to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by the litigants. While adjudicating, the courts must keep the following principles in view. 1. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the court to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by any party by invoking the jurisdiction of the court. 2. When a party applies and gets a stay or injunction from the court, it is always at the risk and responsibility of the party applying. An order of stay cannot be presumed to be conferment of additional right upon the litigating party. 3. Unscrupulous litigants be prevented from taking undue advantage by invoking jurisdiction of the Court. 4. A person in wrongful possession should not only be removed from that place as early as possible but be compelled to pay for wrongful use of that premises fine, penalty and costs. Any leniency would seriously affect the credibility of the judicial system. 5. No litigant can derive benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a court of law. 6. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs. 7. Litigation should not be permitted to turn into a fruitful industry so that the unscrupulous litigants are encouraged to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. 8. The institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by delayed action of courts." 23. In view of the aforesaid decision, these review petitions are dismissed with a direction to the Government to pay the entire compensation amount due to the land owners with 6% Compound Interest within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, since the compensation amount has been deposited in the E.P filed by the claimants in A.S.Nos.81,84,85,93 to 99,104,105,107,108,110 and 147 of 2011 and the amount is lying in the account for more than one year, it is appropriate to permit the respective claimants to withdraw their amounts forthwith. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

08-10-2020 C. Rajakumari & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Industries (MIA), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2020 Bayer New Zealand Limited Versus Ministry For Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
11-09-2020 M/s. S.M. Cement Industries Rep. By One of Its Partners Namely, Manoj Sureka, Assam Versus Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Versus M/s. Radhika Oil Industries, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2020 MS Industries & Spirits (P) Ltd. Versus M/s. Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd. High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-08-2020 M/s. AAF India Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Jagruti Mursenia Versus M/s. KBR Industries, Represented by its Partner High Court of Karnataka
25-08-2020 The Deputy General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Coimbatore & Another Versus M/s. Annamalai Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, P. Velusamy, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2020 K. Manikkan, Railway Liason Officer, Malabar Cements Limited, Walayar Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary, Industries (H) Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-08-2020 L. Ahmed Abdul Razack Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-08-2020 M/S Anjaneya Bisanpur Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Dilawar Singh Rawat & Another High Court of Delhi
06-08-2020 Rajiv Bal Versus Harrison Industries, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Shailendra Singh Versus M/s. Vittal Cashew Industries, Represented by its Partner H. Ganesh Kamath & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-08-2020 R.V. Granites, rep. by its Managing Partner S. Padmavathi Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Mines.II) Department Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
28-07-2020 NSL Sugars Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Liason) H.V. Amarnath Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary (Sugar) Commerce & Industries Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-07-2020 Aqua Pump Industries, Rep by its Managing Partner Ramaswamy Kumaravelu & Another Versus N. Raju, Trading as S.M.Agriculture & Electronics, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-07-2020 N.M. Chandrashekar Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Terracon Projects, Represented by its Proprietor S.V. Babu Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Rep. by its Authorised representative Goregaon Mumbai Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2020 M/s. Durga Fabrication Works, Represented by its Proprietor, Prakash Ramu Rathod Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2020 D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi Versus Jasmeet Walia & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Prakash Industries Limited. Versus Bengal Energy Limited. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-06-2020 Khaleed Pasha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries (MSME, Mines & Textile), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-05-2020 Guru Nanak Industries, Faridabad & Another Versus Amar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Supreme Court of India
26-05-2020 Tips Industries Ltd. Versus Entertainment Network (Kindia) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-05-2020 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Nilesh Mahendra Kumar Gandhi & Another Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Check of Accounts) & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-05-2020 Spentex Industries Ltd Versus Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP High Court of Delhi
05-05-2020 Mohamed Tanveer Versus The State of Karnataka by Addl. Chief Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-05-2020 Agricola Enterprises Ltd. & Another Versus Ministry for Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
27-04-2020 Bihar State Electricity Board & Others Versus M/s. Iceberg Industries Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Exide Industries Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
21-04-2020 Lakshmi Sriniavasa Rice Mills, Rep. by its Partners, K. Kallappa Versus Lakshmi Srinivas Industries, Rep. by its Partners, T. Nageswara Rao, Raichur & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
20-03-2020 M/s. CJP Industries, Represented by its Managing Partner S. Julius Versus Amitha Bishnoi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 A Marine Industries Munambam, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Proprietor, P.T. Francis & Others Versus UCO Bank, Represented by The Chief Manager, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 S. Vaikundarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMD.2) Department, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 Peps Industries Private Limited Versus Kurlon Limited High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Sai Electromech Industries, A Sole Proprietary Concern rep.by Its Proprietor Umangkumar Joshi Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory S. Mahadevan High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Agrocel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 M/s. Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Ministry of Finance & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Ballarpur Industries Limited & Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Forests, Mantralaya In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 Electrosteel Steels Limited, Bokaro & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
04-03-2020 M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd., Rajapalaym Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Bank of India V/S M/s. Brindavan Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Trans Asian Industries Exposition Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd & Another High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Prime Cable Network & Another High Court of Delhi
26-02-2020 Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. Versus Videocon Industries Ltd. (Through) High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Labour-cum-Specified Authority & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-02-2020 Kamal Encon Industries Limited Through its Authorized Representative Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary World Trade Centre, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
24-02-2020 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus GPT Steel Industries Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
24-02-2020 S. Suresh Versus The Management Exide Industries Ltd., Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-02-2020 M/s Century Rayon (A division of Century Textile & Industries Ltd.), Maharashtra V/S Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through its, Chief Engineer (Commercial), Maharashtra And Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
20-02-2020 Asian Food Industries Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-02-2020 ITC Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Constituted Attorney, V.M. Rajasekharan Versus Shree Devi Match Industries, Gudiyattam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Clay Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Rajasthan & Others Versus Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited (Institution of Rajasthan Government) Through Managing Director, Ugyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus Gail (India) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 The Superintending Engineer, General Construction, TANTRANSCO Ltd., Tatabad, Coimbatore & Another Versus Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Director of Industries and Commerce, Represented by its Chairman, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 M/s. Tanfac Industries Limited, Rep. by its Secretary G. Balasubramanian Versus M/s. Orichem Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited V/S Laxmi Balaji Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
07-02-2020 M/s. S.K.J. Coke Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Coal India Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Andhra Bank V/S Suguna Industries Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
06-02-2020 K. Arumugham, Prop. Seetha Industries, Arakandanalu, Villupuram V/S The Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments, Chennai And Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 HDFC Bank Ltd. V/S JNK Electrical Industries Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
05-02-2020 P. Krishnan Versus The Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce (Industrial Co-operatives)/(District Registrar of Industrial Co-op), Guindy, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 D. Vasantha Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Commerce & Industries Department (MSME & Mines), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 B.H. Srinivasa Murthy Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 Sheo Shakti Cement Industries, Hazaribagh Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
04-02-2020 M/s. K.T.V. Health Food Private Limited Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu Industries Department Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Punjab National Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-02-2020 Ishwar Oil Industries and Others. V/S The Authorized Officer, Dena Bank and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad
31-01-2020 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax V/S Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Supreme Court of India
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
28-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Authorised Signatory, New Delhi Versus M/s. Durga Bricks Industries, West Bengal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-01-2020 M/s. Elgi Electric & Industries Limited, Rep. by General Manager, Coimbatore Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Trichy Road Assessment Circle, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Century Rayon (A Division of Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Maharashtra Versus The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
27-01-2020 Vanessa Crasto Versus Central Public Information Officer Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd. Central Information Commission
27-01-2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Versus Vilson Particle Board Industries Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-01-2020 M/s. NMR Industries, Rep. by its Proprietor M. Raja, Chennai Versus The Managing Director, The TIIC Ltd., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. Versus Resolution Professional of Videocon Industries Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
21-01-2020 M/s. Slar Machines & Methods, Rep. by its Partner, V. Saravanabhavan Versus The Branch Manager, National Small Industries Corporation Limited, Hosur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Maa Tarini Industries Ltd. & Another Versus PEC Limited High Court of Delhi
14-01-2020 M/s. Vijeta Projects & Industries Limited Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
10-01-2020 Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Versus Kosan Industries (P)Ltd. Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 M/s. Singapore Reality Private Limited, Represented by its Director having office at T. Nagar, Chennai also at Siruseri Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Industries Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Viju M. Ittoop Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Industries Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
09-01-2020 Chowgule Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Krishna Shrikant Kumbhar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-01-2020 M/s. Maa Bhadrakali Coke Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Dhanbad Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-01-2020 M/s. Refex Industries Limited, Kanchipuram District & Others V/S The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 Bengal Hammer Industries P. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
03-01-2020 P. Dhanalakshmi & Another Versus The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-01-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Zuari Industries Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
02-01-2020 Allahabad Bank V/S Dobhi Agro Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna
02-01-2020 Kaushal Ramesh Mehta Versus Metallica Industries Ltd. & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
02-01-2020 Himadri Speciality Chemicals and Industries Limited V/S Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
27-12-2019 Shah Metal Industries Versus G.L. Rexroth Industries Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta