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



Uttam Datta v/s Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- V P TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL1998PTC096692

Company & Directors' Information:- P & R TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909BR2013PTC019940

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND M TRADING CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27109AP1988PTC008440

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADING CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120KL1942PTC001187

    First Appeal No. A/30/2019

    Decided On, 06 March 2020

    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. DIPA SEN (MAITY)
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: In person. For the Respondent: In Person.



Judgment Text


Samaresh Prasad Chowdhury, Presiding Member

The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of complainant to impeach the final order/judgment being order No. 13 dated 14.12.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I (in short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in Consumer complaint No. 435 of 2016. The impugned order is set out below:

“That the CC No. 435/2016 is allowed on contest with cost against the OP No. 2 and dismissed on contest without cost against the OP No. 1. The OP No. 2 is directed to refund the amount of the price of the said mobile set to the tune of Rs. 10,500/- (Rupees ten thousand five hundred) only to the complainant and compensation of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realisation.

The complainant is also directed to return the said mobile set to the OP No. 2 after realisation of the awarded sum.”

The appellant herein being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that on 23.07.2015 he purchased one Cellular Mobile Handset-LG- D 380 from OP No. 1 in cash at a sum of Rs. 10,500/-. The said mobile set was not in a sealed condition, although there was caution “Do not accept if seal is broken”. The warrantee card was also inside the box but OP No. 1 did not fill up the warrantee card and handed over the said set to the complainant. The complainant had alleged that after purchasing the said mobile set, he noticed that the mobile set was not functioning properly. Immediately, he contacted OP No. 1 but OP No. 1 did not co-operate with the complainant in replacing the same by way of a new one or to refund the amount. In this regard, all the requests and persuasions including the notice dated 16.08.2016 given by the complainant went in vain. Finding no other alternative, the appellant approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for following reliefs, viz.- (a) refund of Rs. 10,500/-, the amount received by the OP No. 1 for the handset; (b) compensation for harassment and mental agony; (c) costs of litigation etc.

By filing written version the respondent No. 1/Opposite Party No. 1 has stated that the mobile set was purchased from their shop but it cannot be said whether there was any defect in the said mobile set or not. The OP No. 1 has also stated that being the seller of the said product, they cannot be held liable for any defect of the said mobile set.

The respondent No. 2/Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. the manufacturer of the mobile handset by filing a separate written version has stated that they cannot be held liable for the claim made by the complainant.

On evaluation of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the parties, as indicated above. To assail the said order, the complainant has come up in this commission with the instant appeal.

Heard the appellant and respondent No. 1 in person and also the Ld. Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and scrutinised the materials on record including the BNA submitted on behalf of respondent No. 2.

Undisputedly, on 23.07.2015 the appellant purchased one cellular mobile handset- LG- D 380 from respondent No. 1 in cash on payment of Rs. 10,500/-. The fact remains that the respondent No. 1 is the seller of the said mobile handset to which respondent No. 2 is the manufacturer. The overwhelming evidence on record make it quite clear that mobile handset was not in a sealed condition, although, there is the caution “do not accept if seal is broken”. However, being insisted by respondent No. 1 with an assurance of one year guarantee, appellant received the mobile handset from respondent No. 1. However, after purchasing of the said mobile set, the appellant noticed that the mobile set was not functioning properly. From 02.05.2016 to 19.07.2016 the said handset was causing serious disturbances, which compelled the appellant to handover the handset to the custody of respondent No. 1 for free service. The fact remains that the handset could not be cured and in this regard, all the requests and persuasions of the appellant for repairing of the same went futile. The record reveals that on 16.08.2016 the appellant sent a notice to the respondents and to that effect a reply was sent on 25.08.2016 but of no good.

During hearing of the appeal, the appellant who appears in person, has submitted that as the mobile set is lying under the custody of OP No. 1/respondent No. 1, Ld. District Forum should not pass the order directing him to return the said mobile set to OP No. 2/respondent No. 2. He has further submitted that considering the loss suffered by him the amount of compensation awarded by the Ld. District Forum of Rs. 1,000/- is a meagre one. He has further submitted that the amount of litigation costs imposed by the Ld. District Forum amounting to Rs. 500/- is also on lesser side taking into consideration of the fact that he had to come from a distant place like Gangarampur, (Dist- Dakshin Dinajpur) for repairing of the mobile set.

The respondent No. 1, who also appears in person, did not deny the fact that the mobile set is lying in their custody and it has been submitted that being an authorised dealer, respondent No. 1 cannot be held responsible for defect of the mobile set.

Mr. Nilufar Begum, Ld. Advocate for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has contended that respondent No. 2 as a good gesture was ready to comply with the order passed by the Ld. District Forum but the appellant has preferred the instant appeal being dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. District Forum. Ld. Advocate for the respondent No. 2 has prayed for disposal of the instant appeal when they were/are ready to comply with the order passed by the Ld. District Forum.

In this backdrop, the prayer of the appellant should be allowed to the effect that the appellant/complainant shall have no obligation to return the mobile set to OP No. 2/respondent No. 2 as per basic order passed by the Ld. District Forum.

Now, the question remains for consideration as to whether or not the compensation and litigation costs awarded by the Ld. District Forum were not in consonance with the loss suffered by the appellant. Section 14(1) (d) of the Act which is relevant for the adjudication of the dispute is as follows:

“14. Finding of the District Forum.- (1)If, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the aggregations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the Opposite Party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely:

............

(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the Opposite Party.”

The sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof of loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the Opposite Party. Once the said conditions are satisfied, the consumer forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled. There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury. There is a duty cast on the Consumer Forum to take into account all relevant factors for arriving at the compensation to be paid.

In Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0588/2000: (2000) 7 SCC 668, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“12. ....... Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast Rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge.”

In the instant case it is evident that the appellant had purchased the mobile set on payment of Rs. 10,500/-. The respondent No. 2 being manufacturer of the said mobile set has agreed to repay the entire amount of Rs. 10,500/-. Therefore, when the appellant has got refunded of the entire amount of Rs. 10,500/-, certainly he will be in a position to purchase another new mobile set and the loss suffered by him is not of that ilk that he is entitled to compensation of more than Rs. 1,000/-. Therefore, we do not find any reason to hold that the compensation awarded by the Ld. District Forum was unjust. We must not be obsessed with the object of law that a consumer forum should not be used for unjust enrichment.

The litigation costs awarded by the Ld. District Forum to the tune of Rs. 500/- also does not appear to be unreasonable because the appellant himself has conducted the case before the Ld

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

. District Forum and there is no instance that in order to purchase the mobile set he had to come from a long way i.e. from Gangarampur ( Dist- Dakshin Dinajpur) to Kolkata. In fact, he had to come for some other purpose at Kolkata and at that point of time he purchased the mobile set and visited the shop of respondent No. 1 for its repairs. Therefore, litigation costs imposed by the Ld. District Forum amounting to Rs. 500/- also does not appear to be unreasonable with. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned final order/judgment being order No. 13 dated 14.12.2018 is modified only to the extent that the complainant/appellant shall be have no obligation to return the mobile set to the OP No. 2/respondent No. 2 after realisation of the awarded sum. However, the other part of the order is maintained. With the above observations, the instant appeal stands disposed of. The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit- I for information.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

24-07-2020 M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited., Represented by its Manager (Legal), A. Saravanan Versus M/s. Greens Trading Company, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
08-06-2020 P.P. Jose, Manager, Mattoor, Kalady, Rice Tech Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus M.M. Abdulkhader, Proprietor, East India Trading Company, Kothamangalam & Another High Court of Kerala
04-06-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Versus State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
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
29-04-2020 M/s. M.B.S. Impex Private Limited & Another Versus Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation Limited High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-03-2020 M/s. Kedia Trading Company Raipur Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-02-2020 M/s. Pankaj Trading Company Proprietor Mr. Manoj Jain & Others Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-02-2020 M/s. Spaarkon Trading Chennai P. Ltd., PAN No.AANCS6476N, Rep. by its Director, Srinivas Ramachandran Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 M/s. Sunchan Trading Co., Kolkata Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 Valliyara Trading & Services (Pvt.) Ltd. & Another Versus M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Egmore, Chennai & Another High Court of Kerala
16-01-2020 Virender Singh Versus M/s. Darshana Trading Company & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-01-2020 Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd. Versus Securities & Exchange Board Of India Sebi Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
07-01-2020 M.K. Trading Co V/S Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
06-01-2020 The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Meeurt-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
02-01-2020 Allahabad Bank V/S S.N. Trading Company and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna
07-11-2019 M/s. Vijay Trading & Transport Company Versus Central Warehousing Corporation Supreme Court of India
25-10-2019 Mahendra T. Thakkar Trading as Prakash Trading Co., Pillaiyar Kulam, Inamkarisalkulam P.O. Srivilliputhur Gujarat & Another Versus N. Ranga Rao & Sons Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-10-2019 U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Versus M/s. Diamond General Trading Supreme Court of India
01-10-2019 Radha Mohan Khandelwal Versus Rajdhani Trading Company National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
25-09-2019 K.K. Rajan, Trading as Shar Industries & Another Versus M/s. V. Vidhya Industries, a Registered Partnership Firm, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2019 M/s. SA Trading Company, By its Proprietor Samir Ashok Sawant Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (ACIU), Office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-09-2019 Associated Trading Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Directors, Madurai Versus State Bank of India, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-09-2019 M/s. Mayavti Trading Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pradyuat Deb Burman Supreme Court of India
28-08-2019 Chailbihari Trading Private Limited & Others Versus Union of India Through Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-07-2019 In the matter of: NUI Pulp and Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Roxcel Trading GMBH National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
05-07-2019 Thulja Traders, Rep.by its Power Agent, S.R. Guruprasad Versus M/s. Venkatesh Trading Company, Rep. by its Partner, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-07-2019 M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Senthamarai Ammal (deceased), M/s. Amin Timber Trading Company & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2019 M/s. Overseas Trading Corporation (Partnership Firm) Versus Tata Global Beverages Ltd. (Formerly Know As Tata Tea Ltd.), New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-06-2019 M. Kuppusamy Versus JRG Securities Ltd., Trading Member, Kaloor, Kochi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2019 OWD Ltd trading as Birmingham Cash & Carry (In Liquidation) & Others Versus Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs & Others United Kingdom Supreme Court
19-06-2019 ALW Estates Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Rajlaxmi Investment & Trading Co. Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-06-2019 M/s. Mahesh Timber Trading Company, Represented by its Managing Partner Mavji Bhai M Patel, Kollathur Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Under Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Krichi Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-06-2019 M/s. R.A. Samy Trading Pvt. Ltd., (Shanmuga Store) rep by its Director R. Arumugasamy & Another Versus The Authorized Officer, United Bank of India, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2019 The Management of Universal Trading Company, Chennai Versus C. Anbazhagan, Rep. by G. Nandakumar, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-04-2019 Vino Trading, Rep., by its Proprietor C. Paramaisware, Madurai Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-04-2019 Betamax Limited Represented by its Director, Veekram Bhunjun Versus State Trading Corporation Represented by its General Manager & Another High Court of Karnataka
10-04-2019 M/s. Shiva Varthni Trading Company, Represented by its Proprietor, T. Gunasekaran Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (ST) Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-04-2019 M/s. Tropex Promotion & Trading Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Delhi
22-03-2019 M/s. Pritesh Trading Co., Rep. by its Proprietor Pritesh Nandu Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-03-2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Saravana Selvarathnam Trading & Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2019 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Versus M/s. Global Steel Holding Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
12-03-2019 Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pradyuat Deb Burman High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-03-2019 The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Sagar Trading Co West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-03-2019 Pueblo Holdings Ltd., Marshall Islands V/S Emirates Trading Agency LLC, Dubai, UAE And Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2019 Vidya Drolia & Others Versus Durga Trading Corporation Supreme Court of India
14-02-2019 Yoglaxmi Investments & Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus Registrar of Companies, Mumbai National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
11-02-2019 S. Shrikanteshwara Versus The State Trading Corporation of India Limited, New Delhi & Another High Court of Karnataka
25-01-2019 National Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Anil Trading Company National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-01-2019 Dutta & Dutta (India), Partnership Concern, Through its Managing Partner Manish Rekheja Versus Mohammed Kutty, Proprietor of Barza Trading Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
14-01-2019 Karnail Kaur & Others Versus M/s. Sekhon Trading Company High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-01-2019 Rakesh P. Gupta & Another Versus The State Trading Corporation of (India) Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-01-2019 K.S. Shanmugham ? Deceased & Others Versus M/s. Veerappan & Co. Trading Private Limited, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2019 Joginder Kanwar Versus Kay Kay Trading Company High Court of Himachal Pradesh
04-01-2019 Balaji Trading Company, Through its Proprietor, Rameshwar Sonwane Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Education and Sports Department & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
20-12-2018 N. Ranga Rao & Sons Private Ltd, Chennai Versus Mahendra T. Thakkar Trading as Prakash Trading Co, Gujarat & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2018 Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida Versus M/s. Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
07-12-2018 Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 901 Versus Lian Tat Huat Trading Pte Ltd Supreme Court of Singapore
06-12-2018 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Versus M/s Global Steel Holding Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
20-11-2018 M/s Gmr Energy Trading Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore
19-11-2018 M/s. Aneja Trading Company & Others Versus M/s. Reena Textile Mills & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-11-2018 B. Kishore Jain, Trading as Khazana Jewellery, Chennai Versus Waseem Jawaid The KHAZANA Imitation Jewellery & Bags, Visakhapatnam High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-10-2018 R.K. Industries Versus Maximus International General Trading LLC High Court of Rajasthan
23-10-2018 Harish Gagnani & Another Versus M/s. Orient Trading Corporation, Rep, by its Managing Partner & Another High Court of Karnataka
04-10-2018 Vijay Krishan Versus The State Trading Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
14-09-2018 Prime Comfort Products Private Limited Versus Lal Bahadur Trading as Sulakshmi Enterprises High Court of Delhi
31-08-2018 Archochart Trading & Shipping Versus Income Tax Officer Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad
21-08-2018 Quick Time General Trading LlC Versus Owners & Parties Interested In Vessel M T Aquarius High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-08-2018 Quick Time General Trading LLC Versus The Owners & Parties Interested In The Vessel M. T. Aquarius High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-07-2018 Municipal Corporation of the City of Amravati, through its Food Inspector O.V. Charjan Versus Ghanshyam Uttamchand Batra, Vendor of M/s. Ashish Trading Company, Amravati & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
23-07-2018 Sonal Steels Trading Pvt Ltd, Chennai Versus ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
18-07-2018 Direct Container Line Inc Versus Sierra Trading Pvt Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 Spark New Zealand Trading Limited Versus Clearspan Property Assets Limited Court of Appeal of New Zealand
02-07-2018 M/s Bhangu Trading Company & Another Versus Surjit Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Supreme Court of India
02-07-2018 Radha Trading Milestone Exim Pvt. Ltd V/S Commr. of Customs, Kandla Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
01-06-2018 The Executrix of The Estate of The Late Josephine Terblanche Gouws (Charmaine Celliers N.O.) Versus Magnificent Mile Trading 30 (Pty) Ltd & Others Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
30-05-2018 State Trading Corporation of India Versus Helm Dungemittel GMBH & Another High Court of Delhi
25-05-2018 Great Eastern Trading Co. Versus Soumya Adhya & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-05-2018 M/s. Jupiter Trading Company & Another Versus Union Bank of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-04-2018 Shyamlal Agrawal Versus Firm Mahavir Trading Co. High Court of Chhattisgarh
09-04-2018 Bellstar Trading Pvt. Ltd., Represented through its Directors, Amarjeet Singh & Others Versus Panasonic India Private Limited, Through its Authorised Representative, V. Swaminathan High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-04-2018 Vippy Solvex Products Ltd. Versus State Trading Corporation (I) Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
04-04-2018 Bhadresh Trading Corporation Limited Versus Jaimurugan Textiles Limited National Company Law Tribunal Chennai
23-03-2018 Olive Tree Trading Pvt. Ltd. Versus F.lli De Cecco Di Filipro - FAra S. Martino S.P.A High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-03-2018 M/s. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-03-2018 R.K. Industries Versus Maximus International General Trading LLC & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
01-03-2018 Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd., Rep by its Senior Officer (Marketing) S. Anbusamy Versus Sulabh Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2018 Surendra Trading Company V/S Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited and Others. NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH
14-02-2018 Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd Versus Michael Christopher Vadasz (Trading As Australasian Piling Company) & Others High Court of Australia
09-02-2018 Sampat Trading Co., A Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partner, G. Prakashchand & Others Versus Seetha Ananthasivan & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-02-2018 Securities and Exchange Board of India V/S Rakhi Trading Private Ltd. Supreme Court of India
07-02-2018 M/s. India Awake for Transparency Shristi Crescendo Versus M/s. Hasham Investment & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
30-01-2018 Alok Saraf Versus Kejriwal Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
22-01-2018 Rais Arif Meman trading as I Ads & Events, Karnataka Versus M/s. Prompt Trade Fair Pvt. Ltd., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2018 Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Guindy Branch, No.28, Lawyer Jagannathan Street, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. Corium Trading Limited, Rep. By its Managing Director. Mr. Jacob Cherian, Chromepet, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-01-2018 Mahendra Trading Co. & Others Versus Hindustan Controls & Equipment Private Limited National Company Law Tribunal Kolkata
19-01-2018 Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Shendra, Aurangabad, Represented by its Company Secretary & Head of GRC Versus M/s. St. Antony's Trading Company, A Partnership Firm Represented By Its Managing Partner Mehar Reynolds & Others High Court of Kerala
10-01-2018 Thaim Trading Co V/S C.C., Mundra Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
08-01-2018 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Shriram trading company, Behrampur, District-Gurdaspur, through its authorized Partner Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
21-12-2017 Kole Investment And Trading Company Private Limited Versus Gaurishankar Neelkanth Kalyani National Company Law Appellate Tribunal