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



VESTAS Wind Technology India Private Limited, (Production Business Unit), Rep. by V.P/Factory Manager, Chennai v/s M. Arul Prakasam & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- BUSINESS CORPN PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15429UP1945PTC001335

Company & Directors' Information:- P & A TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45208OR2011PTC014269

Company & Directors' Information:- I P L TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29290MH2000PTC127550

Company & Directors' Information:- BUSINESS FACTORY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC256397

Company & Directors' Information:- M & C PRODUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300MH2010PTC210370

    W.A. No. 440 of 2019 & C.M.P. No. 4006 of 2019

    Decided On, 05 April 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

    For the Appellant: Sanjay Mohan, Senior Counsel, M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam Associates, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, P.R. Thiruneelakandan, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters and Patents Act against the order made in W.M.P.No.36458 of 2017 in W.P.No.31673 of 2017 dated 24.09.2018.)

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order in W.M.P.No.36458 of 2017 in W.P.No.31673 of 2017 filed by the first respondent herein for a direction to the appellant before us to either reinstate him in service as per the award of the Labour Court or pay him full last drawn wage from the date of the award under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The miscellaneous petition filed by the first respondent herein was allowed by the impugned order dated 24.09.2018. The appellant Management, who is the original writ petitioner who had challenged the award passed by the Labour Court is on appeal as against the order passed in the miscellaneous petition.

3. We have heard Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam Associates and Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan, learned counsel for the first respondent.

4. The first respondent had filed the miscellaneous petition in the writ petition filed by the appellant Management contending that in terms of Section 17B of the Act if the employer challenges the award of the Labour Court which directs reinstatement of the workmen and the said workmen has not been gainfully employed anywhere in any establishment and an affidavit is filed by the concerned workmen to that effect during the pendency of the writ petition, he should be paid full last drawn wage from the date of the award. It is further submitted that despite several representations given by the first respondent to the appellant Management they have neither reinstated the first respondent nor paid wages under Section 17B of the Act and therefore approached the Court by filing the miscellaneous petition. The appellant Management resisted the prayer by contending that the first respondent has made false statements in the affidavit filed in support of the miscellaneous petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. It was further stated that it has come to the notice of the appellant Management that the first respondent is running a Construction Company under the name and style of M/s.Srilekha Homes at Plot No.33/1A, Priyadharshini Nagar, Sithalapakkam, Chennai - 73 and consequently gainfully employed. It is further submitted that the first respondent is earning income from and out of his business and they relied upon the following documents to support their stand that the first respondent is running his own Construction Company and has employed people under him and therefore gainfully employed.

i. Advertisement of Srilekha Homes posted by Arul Mani with his photo in his Facebook profile on 27.03.2013 that has been downloaded by the management from the Internet.

ii. Advertise of his construction business namely Srilekha Homes is posed in the website of Sulekha property wherein it mentions that Arul Prakasam is agent as on date.

iii. Online advertisement made in www.magicbricks.com (which shows that Srilekha Homes is a construction firm that is engaged in the business of real estate development) containing description of Srilekha Homes given by Mr.Arul Prakasam as on date. The advertisement also contains his profile as well as photograph. A copy of the same as downloaded from the Internet is annexed herewith.

iv. Facebook profile of Mr.Arul Mani with his photo showing that he works as an Assistant Manager of Vestas as on 11.12.2014 that has been downloaded from the Internet.

v. His mobile number stated in Srilekha Homes 94449 88877 & 98841 27766 is classified as Construction and Real Estate Business.

vi. Photos of Srilekha Homes available in www.justdial.com containing visiting card of Mr.Arul Prakasam, Srilekha Homes as on 12.07.2017 that has been downloaded from the Internet.

5.The learned Single Bench by the impugned order rejected the stand taken by the appellant Management that the relutance to rely upon the Facebook evidence is based upon a fear that such information was inherently unreliable due to the possibility of the creation of false Facebook sites or the posting of false messages by a "hacker". Thus it is held that without proof the Facebook entires cannot be relied on. The first respondent before the learned Single Bench has relied upon certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court for the proposition that personal avocation of the workmen or transient employment does not disentitle the workmen to claim wages under Section 17B of the Act.

6. When we heard this appeal we afforded an opportunity to the first respondent to file a counter affidavit to the stand taken by the appellant before us. Accordingly, a counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent.

7. Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan, learned counsel for the first respondent reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit by submitting that the appellant has not produced any legally acceptable and admissible evidence to show that there is a Company under the name and style of M/s.Srilekha Homes and the said Company is owned by the first respondent or he has shares in the Company. Further, it is contended that the appellant has not produced any such document to show that the said Company is incorporated with the Registrar of Companies or with the Registrar of Firms, etc. and therefore, the existence of the Company itself is in question. Further, it is contended that the documents relied on by the appellant in the counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Bench are false, fabricated, generated by the appellant for the purpose of the case and such documents can be generated by anyone in any other persons name and the documents are not public documents and they are not legally admissible or acceptable documents and those documents cannot be relied on without affording an opportunity to the first respondent to cross examine them to testify the genuineness and veracity of the documents. By relying on the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court, it is reiterated that personal avocation of the workmen or transient employment does not disentitle him to claim wages under Section 17B of the Act. Further, it is submitted that the payment of wages under Section 17B of the Act is a pre-condition to entertain a writ petition challenging an award of reinstatement that could not have been denied when the conditions stipulated under Section 17B of the Act is complied with by the concerned workmen.

8. Before, we examine as to whether the learned Single Bench was right in recording a finding that the Facebook entries are false entries and could be hacked, we first need to take note of the requirements which are to be fulfilled for a workmen to be entitled for wages under Section 17B of the Act. The said provisions states that where in any case a Labour Court or a Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in the High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit of such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court. It further states that provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under Section 17B of the Act for such period or part, as the case may be. In the instant case, there is an award in favour of the first respondent directing reinstatement. The appellant Management has filed a writ petition challenging the award and the matter is pending before this Court. Thus the first limb of Section 17B of the Act stands attracted.

9. The obligation cast upon the workmen is to state on affidavit that he has not been employed in any establishment during the said period. If an affidavit is filed to the said effect the section provides for a remedy to the Management to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that such workmen has been employed and has been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof. If the Management is able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the workmen had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration no wages need be paid to the workmen. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that there are no conditions attached to a claim for wages under Section 17B of the Act. The first respondent had filed an affidavit in support of W.M.P.No.36458 of 2017 stating that he is not gainfully employed anywhere. The Management has filed a counter affidavit and relied upon six documents to support their case that the first respondent is running his own Construction Company. The documents so relied on have been listed in the preceding paragraphs and they have been filed in the typed set of papers along with this appeal. Those documents are all screen shots of the images which are available in the websites. The screen shots contains photographs of the first respondent, his full residential address, nature of business carried on and all other relevant details. The first respondent while filing the affidavit has merely stated that he is not gainfully employed. The term gainful employment has been the subject matter of interpretation by various Courts and self employment is also one among the employment which has been recognized but a self employment for sustenance of the workmen during the period when he was denied employment despite an award of reinstatement was not considered as a bar. Therefore what is relevant would be that the workmen should be gainfully employed. The first respondent has nowhere denied that the information available in the public domain, i.e. in the websites are not the information pertaining to him, rather the first respondent would state that it is the appellant who has to prove the same.

10. In our considered view the burden of proof has been discharged by the appellant by producing these documents. Having done so, the burden now shifts on the first respondent to prove that he has nothing to do with those information available online. Therefore, we do not agree with the finding rendered by the learned Single Bench that there is a possibility of hacking the Facebook pages and the Facebook evidence can be looked into upon a proper foundation and no such proper foundation has been laid in the case on hand. However, this appears to be not a stand taken by the first respondent before the learned Single Bench. The first respondent in the reply affidavit which was filed to the counter affidavit filed by the appellant Management before the learned Single Bench has not disowned the information but has made a vague allegation that they are false and fabricated documents. If t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

hat is so, then the first respondent ought to have set the criminal law in motion to bring to books the alleged perpetrator of such false and fabricated documents. The reply affidavit filed before the learned Single Bench by the first respondent has been filed as a counter affidavit before us in this appeal. There need not be any necessity for this Court to refer to the long line of decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the first respondent as there is no dispute raised as regards as the legal proposition that personal avocation of workmen does not disentitle him to claim wages under Section 17B of the Act. The first respondent having not been able to disprove the allegation made against him, not having been able to produce any material to show that the information available in the public domain was false and fabricated, is deemed to be gainfully employed and therefore, not entitled for wages under Section 17B of the Act. 11. For all the above reasons, the writ appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Bench in W.M.P.No.36458 of 2017 in W.P.No.31673 of 2017 dated 24.09.2018 is set aside and consequently W.M.P.No.36458 of 2017 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

20-07-2020 M/s. SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt. Ltd., Haryana Versus Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, West Bengal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-07-2020 Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering & Technology & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
25-06-2020 Brahmaputra Business Pvt. Ltd & Another Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
19-06-2020 The Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur & Another Versus Dr. Subroto Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-06-2020 State Bank of India Versus Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, West Bengal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
26-05-2020 O.R. Rahul & Others Versus Indian Institute of Space Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement, Roving Squad, Chengalpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 M.G. Narasimha Rao Versus The Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-05-2020 Score Information Technology Ltd. Versus Central Organisation, Ex-Serviceman Contributory Health Scheme High Court of Delhi
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Labour And Two Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Appellate Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
01-05-2020 Electrosteel Steels Limited, having its Registered Office at Ranchi, Principal place of Business at Siyaljori, District Bokaro Versus The State of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner of State Tax, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Jayakumar Assistant Professor-Cum-Assistant Director, Centre For Social Exclusion & Inclusion, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus Dr. Jyothi S. Nair & Others High Court of Kerala
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Dr.(Mrs) Sania Akhtar, Working as Principal Director (Senior Principal Scientist), Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology SARP, Bangalore Versus The Director General, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers, Guindy, Chennai & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
05-03-2020 Dinesh Kumar Rao Versus G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
04-03-2020 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Limited V/S Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit-1 Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Anil Ramdas Pawar V/S Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-03-2020 S. Aruputharaj Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Education, Science & Technology, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit-I & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Rep. by its Chairman, Er.A. Mohamed Yunus, Trichy & Others Versus The Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Guindy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 P. Kamalanathan (Died) & Others Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Business Range VI, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 M. Chandrika Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Ariculture Production Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Anna University Campus, Chennai Versus Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Namakkal & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 Dharmapuri Handloom weaver's Cooperative Production Sales Society Limited., Represented by its Administration Dharmapuri Liquidator of the Society Babu Versus P. Sambantham High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 K. Rangadoss V/S Lyca Productions, Production Company, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Daniel Oommen Versus National Institute of Technology, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
12-02-2020 Richa Jindal Versus Pec University of Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-02-2020 Achal Bisht Versus Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management & Catering Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-02-2020 Muthoot Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Senior Manager (Business Development), Mumbai V/S State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 N. Balakrishnan & Others V/S The Agriculture Production Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 N. Balakrishnan & Others V/S The Agriculture Production Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Rasi Travels & Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd., A company having its Registered Office at Janpath, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Maximus ARC Ltd. V/S IDS Business Systems Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
03-02-2020 Syndicate Bank V/S Narayanadri Institute of Science And Technology and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
23-01-2020 S. Jagannathan Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Agricultural Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2020 Masaddar Ali Laskar, Officer Surveyor, Office of the Director GDC, Assam Nagaland, GDC Versus The Union of India, Through the Secretary, To the Government of India, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-01-2020 The Principal , Global Institute of Fashion Technology (GIFT) & Another Versus Bikramadittya Sai & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
10-01-2020 K. Arumugam Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Agricultural Production Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, "Aaykar Bhavan" Versus Gigabyte Technology (India) Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
06-01-2020 Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi Versus Shibu M. Job, Now Working as Director (Postal Life Insurance), Kolkatha & Others High Court of Kerala
17-12-2019 M/s. Lanco Hills Technology Park Pvt Ltd. Versus Manisha Balkrishna Kulkarni & Another Supreme Court of India
11-12-2019 D.R. College of Engg. & Technology, College Campus at V&PO Kakoda Versus Nitin Parashar Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
02-12-2019 Basava Engineering School of Technology Rep. by its Principal B.J. Patil Versus State of Karnataka Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Department of Technical Education High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
28-11-2019 A. Mani & Another Versus The Registrar cum Director, Milk Production & Dairy Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2019 M/s. Refex Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Production Manager, A. Ravi Versus The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Salem Versus The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 M/s. Prasad Productions Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Prakash Raj, Proprietor, Carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Prakash Raj Productions at No.21/9, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 The Registrar, National Institute of Fashion Technology, N.I.F.T. Campus, Taramani, Chennai & Another Versus Sam D. Raja Prabhu & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2019 The State of Maharashtra & Others Versus M/s. Jasubhai Business Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Excel Realtors Ltd.) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-11-2019 Biju Borah Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-11-2019 Majaffar Hussain Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-11-2019 Ranjit Sukla Baidya, Tripura Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Post, Ministry of Communication & Technology, Government of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
29-10-2019 K.A. Mohammed Manikfan, Junior Scientific Officer, Department of Science & Technology, Kavaratti Versus Union of India, Rep. by The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti & Others High Court of Kerala
23-10-2019 Teledata Technology Solutions Versus Official Liquidator High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-10-2019 R. Rajkumar & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
26-09-2019 Snehacharya Institute of Management & Technology Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
11-09-2019 Ramsay Exim & Technology Private Limited & Others ICICI Bank Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-09-2019 Earnest Business Services Private Limited VersusThe Government of the State of Israel, through the Consul General of Israel High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-09-2019 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-08-2019 Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair, Rtd. Professor & Director of School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
20-08-2019 Sudhan Ranjan Bhowmik Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Ministry of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
19-08-2019 Bharti Airtel Limited & Another Versus Maharashtra Information Technology Corporation Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-08-2019 Software Technology Parks of India, Chennai Versus Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-08-2019 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Department, Secretariat, Guntur District & Others Versus R.V. Prakash High Court of Andhra Pradesh
07-08-2019 San International Business School, Rep.by its Chairman, T. Jayalakshmi Versus The Director, Centre for Affiliation of Institutions, Anna University, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2019 Tapas Malakar Versus The Union of India Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Government of India, Central Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Tripura
02-08-2019 Global Institute of Fashion Technology (G.I.F.T) Versus Shaista Parveen West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
31-07-2019 M.J.R. College of Engineering & Technology, Rep., by its Principal, G.V. Ramu & Another Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Corporation Bank, Damalacheruvu Rep., by its Branch Manager, Sudhir Kumar Dubey High Court of Andhra Pradesh
16-07-2019 Jatin Keshruwala Sole Proprietor, Janvi Production through its Power of Attorney Holder Pankaj Keshruwala Versus M/s. DAG Creative Media Pvt. Ltd. through its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-06-2019 Apeejay Institute of Technology School of Architecture & Planning & Another Versus Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University & Others Supreme Court of India
25-06-2019 Hindustan College of Science & Technology Versus All India Council for Technical Education & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-06-2019 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Larger Taxpayer Unit, Nungambakkam High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-06-2019 Sri Nandhanam College of Engineering and Technology, Molagarampatti, Tiruppattur, Rep. by its Chairman, P.M.N. Mohan Krishnaa Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-06-2019 M/s. Deccan Emerging Business Ventures Pvt Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore
04-06-2019 The Cochin Institute of Science & Technology, Ettappally, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Principal Dr. S.R. Deepa Versus Jisin Jijo & Others High Court of Kerala
04-06-2019 Schneider Electric IT Business India Private Limited Rep.by its Authorized Signatory, T.A. Badrinarayanan, Chennai Versus State Tax Officer, Adyar Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2019 Ashok Dashrath Rana Versus Edit II Production Binaifer Sanjay Kohli & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-06-2019 The Director, Rajagiri School of Engineering & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
03-06-2019 Kiran Murali & Another Versus Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., (A Company incorporate under the Companies Act, 1956) Having its Office at Softward Technology Park, Electronics Complex, Madhya Pradesh & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-05-2019 Sagnik Pal & Others Versus National Institute of Technology, Agartala & Others High Court of Tripura
28-05-2019 M/s. Teleecare Network India Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
23-05-2019 Kamal Sharma & Others Versus Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
14-05-2019 Ram Govind Institute of Technology, Mahuvan, Koderma Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
10-05-2019 Anjum Hussain & Others Versus Intellicity Business Park Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
08-05-2019 M/s. Ipjacket Technology India Versus M.D. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-05-2019 Anuradha Chakraborty Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
02-05-2019 Medirad Tech India Limited & Another Versus Technology Development Board High Court of Delhi
30-04-2019 Ind Trust Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Versus Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-04-2019 Immanuel Arasar International Institute of Science & Technology Educational Charitable Trust rep. by its Founder Trustee Sam G.Jebajoselin Versus The Regional Officer, Southern Regional Office, AICTE & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-04-2019 M/s. Elastrex Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Production Manager Versus Nagaraju & Another High Court of Karnataka
18-04-2019 Amritpal Singh Khalsa Versus Maharashtra State Bureau of Textbooks Production & Curriculum Research & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-04-2019 Ashutosh Bansal Versus Birla Institute of Management & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-04-2019 K. Rasu Versus The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-04-2019 Akshansh Gupta Versus Department of Science & Technology & Others High Court of Delhi
09-04-2019 Siemens Limited Seethakathi Business Centre, Rep by its Manager - PD LD Project Management Gurubaran Senthurpandian, Chennai Versus M/s. Marg Limited, having its Registered Office at “Marg Axis”, 4/138, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 Binud Sonowal Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
03-04-2019 M/s. Alankar Business Corporation Ltd. (Formerly Chennai Bottling Co. Ltd) Versus The Income Tax Officer High Court of Judicature at Madras