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



United Spirits Limited v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - I, Kolkata


Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L01551KA1999PLC024991

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1942PLC003159

    ITA No. 12 of 2006

    Decided On, 20 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I.P. MUKERJI & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA

    For the Petitioner: J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate, Sanjukta Gupta, Avra Majumder, Pramit Bag, Amitava Mitra, Parag Chaturvedi, Advocates. For the Respondent: M.P. Agarwalla, Advocate.



Judgment Text

I.P. Mukerji, J.

By an order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 12th June, 2006, this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the disallowance as capital expenditure of the payment of Rs.62 lakhs made by the appellant to the sub-tenant inducted by it in an earlier year for resuming the sub-tenanted portion of Wallace House for its own business use and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?

Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance as capital expenditure of the payment of Rs.21.20 lakhs made by the appellant to its distributor for resuming for its own business use the portion of Wallace House which the appellant had allowed the distributor to use in the past and for setting the distributor's claim and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?"

The reference to the appellant will include their predecessor-in-interest.

Briefly the facts are these:-

The appellant was the sub-lessee of, inter alia, the third and fourth floors of Wallace House standing on 4 and 5 Bankshal Street, Kolkata - 01. The lessee was one Joseph Issac Hyam. The head lease, according to the appellant expired on 30th June, 1984. With it all rights of the sub lessee came to end. The appellant claiming themselves as a monthly tenant, on 4th April, 1985, sub let the fourth floor to M/s Satya Sai Properties Limited. There was further sub-letting to M/s. Anam Corporation which in turn let in Allahabad Bank. The appellant says that this was done without their permission. Thereafter, legal proceedings were commenced, inter alia, by a trustee to the wakf for eviction of the appellant. In the suit filed by him, on 18th September, 1996, An order was made by this Court directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.32,000/- per month as occupation charges to the wakf estate as an interim measure.

The appellant contends before us that they did not have any permanent interest in the property. Even their right, title and interest as a tenant, was disputed. They filed a suit against M/s. Satya Sai Properties Limited and M/s. Anam Corporation praying for their eviction on the ground that the appellant needed the portion occupied by them, namely, the fourth floor, for their business. In those circumstances it paid Rs.62 lakhs to M/s. Satya Sai Properties Limited and M/s. Anam Corporation. Similarly, it paid Rs.21.20 lakhs to Mr. B. K. Roy (P) Ltd. to vacate the third floor of the premises.

The question which falls for consideration is whether this expenditure incurred by the company was capital or revenue in nature?

The learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Calcutta expressed the opinion in its order dated 31st August, 2005, that the payment of Rs. 83.20 lakhs made by the appellant to M/s. Satya Sai Properties Limited, M/s. Anam Corporation and M/s. B. K. Roy (P) Ltd. was to be treated as capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure. It affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Both Mr. Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Agarwal, learned Advocate for the Income Tax department cited various authorities in which property related expenditure was made by the assessee. In the cases cited by Mr. Khaitan those expenditures were treated as revenue expenditure whereas in those cited by Mr. Agarwal, they were held to be capital expenditure.

The principles of law and accountancy on which the differentiation has been made by the Courts between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure, must be appreciated in order to come to a conclusion in this appeal.

Under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 expenses not being those described in Sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income tax under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". Hence, if an expenditure is capital in nature, it is not allowable, irrespective of the fact that it was made in connection with the business.

To put it simply, any expenditure that results in formation of capital is capital expenditure. Capital is something permanent. Any property of enduring value may be called capital. Any property providing permanent benefit may also be called capital. Stock-in-trade is not capital because it is constantly used up in production or being sold in the market.

If an expenditure is an integral part of the profit earning process of a business then it is revenue expenditure but if made for possession of an asset or right of a permanent character then the expenditure is capital in nature.

(Bombay Stream Navigation Co. (1953) P. Ltd Vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52). Payment of Rs.1,15,000/- to perfect the title to a capital asset, i.e, a Mill was held to be a capital expenditure (V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373). The test is whether the expenditure creates a new asset or is for furtherance of business of the assessee (See Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754). In Chloride India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal reported in 130 ITR page 61, Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji delivering the judgment of a division bench of this Court, after consideration of many authorities came to the finding that Gasper and company's right to possession "which is capital" and of an "enduring nature" was acquired by the assessee, by payment of consideration. The expenses were capital in nature.

Another Division Bench of our Court headed by Mr. Justice Dipak Kumar Sen in Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (1987) 168 ITR 533 looked into the primary and dominant object of the assessee in incurring expenditure including legal expenses to obtain leases of properties in Delhi and Kolkata. Since, the leases were sufficiently long and resulted in enduring benefit to the assessee, the entire expense including legal expenses of Rs.15,082 was adjudged to be capital expenditure. More or less identical was the ruling of another Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Sen in Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (1979) 117 ITR 747. Payment of instalments by the assessee to the lessor to obtain a sub-lease was held to be a capital expenditure and not allowable deduction (See Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hemraj mahabir Prosad (P.) Ltd. reported in (1989) 179 ITR 73). Compensation paid by the assessee after taking on lease a factory, to evict certain unauthorised occupants of the factory was held to be capital expenditure (see Hardiallia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 218 ITR 598).

The above cases were cited by Mr. Agarwala, for the Income Tax department. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate cited Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income -tax reported in 124 ITR page 1. In this case Jute Companies formed the Indian Jute Mill Association. By an agreement between themselves they restricted the number of working hours of looms per week to not more than 45 hours per week per mill. However, a mill which worked for less hours could transfer for consideration those hours to another mill. The Supreme Court reversing the judgment of the High Court held that this purchase of loom hours was revenue expenditure. No new asset was created. Purchasing loom hours resulted in increased profit. If the expenditure incurred helped in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management to conduct the assessee's business more efficiently or profitably, while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be revenue, according to the Supreme Court. The test of enduring benefit was not the conclusive test.

A division bench of the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Trivandrum Vs. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. reported in 131 ITR page 154 cited by Mr. Khaitan held that when eviction of a tenant resulted in higher income for the assessees the expenditure was revenue in nature.

In Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Auto Distributors Ltd. reported in 210 ITR page 222, a division bench judgment of our Court, cited by Mr. Khaitan the assessee company was engaged in the business of taking property on lease and letting them out on rent for the purpose of earning income. Instead of taking legal proceedings against a sub-tenant occupier of the premises, Laxmi Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., it got the company to vacate it upon payment of compensation. Thereafter, the assessee company let out the same to the bank at a much higher rate of rent. On those facts, the division bench held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee company to evict Laxmi Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. was revenue in nature.

The assessee contends that it was merely in possession of the premises. Litigation was continuing in this Court. They were allowed to retain possession of the premises, by the Court, on payment of occupation charges of Rs.32,000/- per month. They say that they were not the owners, lessee or sub-lessee of the property but were only in possession thereof, claiming to be a monthly tenant. Hence, they had no permanent title or interest. Two entities M/s. Satya Sai Properties Limited and M/s. Anam Corporation also got into the subject premises, inducted by the assessee. With them the assessee struck a deal that if they vacated the premises they would be compensated, by being paid Rs.62 lakhs. The deal materialised. Another company M/s. B. K. Roy (P) Ltd. was inducted into the third floor by the assessee. They were distributing the assesses's fertiliser production on a whole sale basis. They were also removed from occupation of the premises by the assessee by payment of compensation of Rs.21.20 lakhs. Mr. Khaitan argued that since the assessee did not have any permanent right title and interest obtaining more space by evicting M/s. Satya Sai Properties, M/s. Anam Corporation and M/s. B. K. Roy (P) Ltd. was for the business growth of the assessee. Any expenditure made in this behalf was revenue expenditure. Note the difference in the facts of this case with Commissioner of Income- tax Vs. Auto Distributors Ltd. reported in 210 ITR page 222. In that case, the assessee was engaged in the business of taking property on lease with a right to sub-let. The property was sub-let augmenting the income of the assessee. On these facts the division bench of our Court held that the expenditure was revenue. The division bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Tribandrum Vs. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. reported in 131 ITR page 154 can only be justified on the ground that if the effect of incurring expenditure had a direct connection with increasing the income of the assessee, then it could be said that the expense was revenue in nature.

The purchase of loom hours from others had a direct impact on the increase of income of the assessee and thus held to be revenue expenditure by the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income -tax reported in 124 ITR page 1.

On the other hand in Chloride India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal reported in 130 ITR page 61 Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji for the division bench said:

"Therefore, the nature of the transaction that was found by the Tribunal was that M/s. Gaper & Co. had the legal right to be in possession, which legal right, the assessee, in the instant case, had to obtain or had to procure and for procuring that legal right to possession which was with M/s. Gasper & Co. by virtue of Section 108(c), being the lessee of the original landlord, there necessarily had to be the extinction of that right, that is to say, M/s. Gasper & Co.'s right to possession and that right to possession which flows from the right which M/s. Gasper & Co. obtained, was acquired by the assessee. If the right to possession be a right, which is capital, it is a capital of enduring nature, in the sense fixed capital asset endures. In that view of the matter, in our, opinion, the Tribunal was right in coming to the decision that the expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure and was not a revenue expenditure. For the aforesaid reasons, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue."

We think that the principles are plain that when one is examining a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

n expenditure in connection with property, one has to see what is the dominant purpose of making this expenditure. If it results in acquisition of any right to property, whether free hold, lease hold or a mere right to possession, having some kind of permanence and of enduring nature the expenditure is capital. But if the expenditure is pre-dominantly for expansion of business although it results in acquisition of some capital, then the business purpose of the expenditure is paramount. The expenditure has to be taken as revenue. In the present case, it is just not established how the business of the assessee was perceived to grow out of the property acquired by them by negotiating the eviction of the said occupants. In fact, through the negotiation the assessee acquired some kind of an enduring right of possession over the occupied area of the said premises surrendered to them by those occupants. It had the incidents of permanence. In those circumstances we agree with the revenue that the expenditure was capital in nature. This 260A appeal by the assessee is dismissed by answering the questions in favour of the revenue and against the assessee on the basis of the observations made in this judgment and order. Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. I agree.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

14-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Vellore Versus Krishnaveni & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Versus M/s. Radhika Oil Industries, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Pyar Singh Versus Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-09-2020 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chidambaram Versus Emili & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, Osmanpura, Aurangabad Versus Chandrakala & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-09-2020 M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Namakkal. Versus Allimuthu @ Sengodan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Arani Versus Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2020 Master Vinay Bharadwaj, Rep. by his Father & Natural Guardian D.R. Shivakumar Versus M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
25-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Maragatham & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Singhla Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Narinder Kour & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
14-08-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, District Raipur & Another Versus Rahi Solanki & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
06-08-2020 M/s. Perfectpac Ltd., Haryana Versus United India Insurance Company Limited (Through Its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager/ Authrised Signatory) & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-08-2020 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharasthra State, Represented By Its Deputy Manager, Regional Office, Ernakulam Versus Rijawana Jamshed Mulla & Others High Court of Kerala
04-08-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Coimbatore Versus Murugammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-07-2020 The Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Vellore Versus M. Amavasai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-07-2020 The Chairman & Managing Director, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Rajini & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Md. Khayyumkhan & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-06-2020 Bilsy Joseph, now residing at 3743, Falkner Drive, United States of America, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder (Mother), Rosamma Joseph, Kottayam Versus Registrar of Births & Deaths, Changanassery Muncipality, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
25-06-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Amar Singh Raghuwanshi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-06-2020 M/s. Jain Textiles, Ashok Jain Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 M.H. Uma Maheshwari & Others Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
04-06-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus N. Prathap & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 PUEBLO HOLDINGS LIMITED, Rep. by its authorised signatory Siddhesh Sham Kshirsagar Versus EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC, A company incorporated under the appropriate laws of the United Arab Emirates having its registered office and/or business address at ETA Star House, United Arab Emirates & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune Regional Office, through its Divisional Office & Others Versus Shriniwas Ramayya Kamtam & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 United Nurses Association, Through Its State President Shoby Joseph, Thrissur Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
15-04-2020 United Nurses Association Through Its President Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Mora Devi High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
12-03-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruppur Versus Kaveriammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 S. Mahadevan Versus The General Manager, (Appellate Authority) Personnel Department, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai 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
11-03-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Div. Office- I, Secunderabad Versus Syed Mohd. Rayees & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-03-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus B. Sudha & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Nirmala Kothari Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
03-03-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Yechuri Nirmala & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-03-2020 United Bank of India, West Bengal Versus Ranjan Basu & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-03-2020 Geetha & Others Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Neyveli High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 S. Senguttuvel & Others Versus The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Motor TP Claims Hub, Represented by its Manager Versus T. Thimmanna & Others High Court of Karnataka
18-02-2020 Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore V/S Rani & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 M/s. Baspa Organics Limited V/S United India Insurance Company Limited Supreme Court of India
12-02-2020 The United Goans Foundation, through its Secretary Avinash Tavares Versus The State of Goa through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
10-02-2020 United Bank of India V/S Ashok Kumar Kalra and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
10-02-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus C. Meenakshi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 Canara Bank Versus M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Versus Syed Rehmath Ali & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-02-2020 Rakesh Chandra Savita Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
05-02-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Md Nur Mohamed High Court of Gauhati
03-02-2020 Rajesh Narula Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
31-01-2020 B. Alphonse Legori Versus CPIO /Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. Central Information Commission
31-01-2020 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Cuddalore Versus Purushothaman (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 The Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai Versus C. Kavitha & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Madurai. Versus Muthammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Shyam Manohar Harit Versus CPIO United India Insurance Company Ltd. Central Information Commission
30-01-2020 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hosur & Another Versus Vediyappan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Deputy General Manager Versus D. Sunderarajan High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 United Mine Workers Union Through Shri Puti Gaonkar General Secretary Versus Union of India, Through Secretary, (Ministry of Labour and Employment) & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
25-01-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd. Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raipur
23-01-2020 Mukesh Parikh & Another Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tamil Nadu National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 Prashant Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Gujarat Versus Mukesh Parikh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Gujarat Versus Mukesh Parikh Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 Prashant Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Assistant Manager Authorised Signatory, Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-01-2020 M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Tadepallygudem Versus V. Narahari Sharma & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-01-2020 M/s. BCPL Railway Infrastructure Ltd. Versus The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-01-2020 Shri Gas Service Versus United India Insurance Co. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-01-2020 Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh) & Another Versus United Bank of India & Another Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
17-01-2020 Sangrur Sales Corporation Versus United India Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Urmila Agarwal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shindutai Wasudeorao Thakare & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Tila Kumari Giri & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-01-2020 Sunita Bhalla Versus United Inida Insurance Co Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Reshma & Others High Court of Delhi
07-01-2020 Ramkhiladi & Another Versus The United India Insurance Company & Another Supreme Court of India
07-01-2020 United India Insurance Co Ltd. Versus Sandeep Kumar Bubna Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
07-01-2020 The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Ramanathapuram Versus T. Saravanan & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-01-2020 United India Insurance Co Ltd. Versus Sandeep Kumar Bubna National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Gopal Agencies National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-01-2020 United Indian Insurance Company Limited, Through its Branch Manager Versus Ujwala Salgonkar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
03-01-2020 Nalini Bala Cold Storage Private Limited and Others. V/S United Bank of India and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Kolkata
03-01-2020 Ajit Singh Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Haryana & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-12-2019 Global United Shipping India Private Limited, (formerly known as Jalhansa Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.), Represented by its Director, Prem Kumar Menon, Chennai Versus Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-12-2019 The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Limited, Rep. The Divisional Manager, Raichur Versus Mallamma & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
18-12-2019 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/S M/s. Tarapore & Co., Represented by Partner N. Radhakrishnan High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Raj Kumari & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
17-12-2019 United India Insurance Company Limited & Others Versus Kunti Binod Pande & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-12-2019 Dincy Devassy Versus United India Insurance Co. & Others High Court of Delhi
06-12-2019 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus M.M. Hamza Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
06-12-2019 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruppur V/S Arundhati Ghoshal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-11-2019 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager Versus Bagili Mallesham & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-11-2019 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rameshrao Bapuraoji Gulhane & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-11-2019 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Ravindra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-11-2019 United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus D. Mariyammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2019 Taj Mahal Hotel Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
13-11-2019 Dev Patti Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-11-2019 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Narayani High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
04-11-2019 United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus A. Selvi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-10-2019 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Sankagiri Versus Kaliannan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-10-2019 M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Mohd. Naseeruddin Patel & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
23-10-2019 Branch Manager, United India Insc. Co. Ltd. Versus Velpula Lakshmavva & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana