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



Vijay S/o Shamrao Bhale v/s Godavari Garments Ltd. & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- VIJAY GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101TN1988PLC015697

Company & Directors' Information:- D R GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101GJ2005PTC046010

Company & Directors' Information:- R. R. GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1995PLC095544

Company & Directors' Information:- S G GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2004PLC098193

Company & Directors' Information:- K K P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921TZ1994PTC005334

Company & Directors' Information:- GODAVARI CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1946PTC022398

Company & Directors' Information:- GODAVARI GARMENTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101MH1977SGC019529

Company & Directors' Information:- B K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2001PTC109850

Company & Directors' Information:- N K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2000PTC107093

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2005PTC101896

Company & Directors' Information:- G AND A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101PB1995PTC016121

Company & Directors' Information:- V H GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52322MH2008PTC181066

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1996PTC083315

Company & Directors' Information:- G. M. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2006PTC152683

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND D GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1975PTC007923

Company & Directors' Information:- J S GARMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2009PTC135262

Company & Directors' Information:- K. B . GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2011PTC166954

Company & Directors' Information:- A K GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2015PTC282847

Company & Directors' Information:- D P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2004PTC129479

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143084

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P GARMENTS PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143556

Company & Directors' Information:- V S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101HR2005PTC068124

Company & Directors' Information:- L. H. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17121KA2011PTC060761

Company & Directors' Information:- K R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111WB1998PTC087046

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52321TN1993PTC025318

Company & Directors' Information:- P. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204DL2007PTC164238

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17121DL2007PTC165007

Company & Directors' Information:- T S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51494DL1996PTC076668

Company & Directors' Information:- GARMENTS INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909GJ1979PTC003310

Company & Directors' Information:- I G S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2004PTC128723

Company & Directors' Information:- VIJAY GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17124DL1985PTC020442

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC164129

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC164404

Company & Directors' Information:- B G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC142488

Company & Directors' Information:- S P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC120709

Company & Directors' Information:- P N GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2004PTC127524

Company & Directors' Information:- V P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18109DL2012PTC233293

Company & Directors' Information:- S T GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2015PTC277043

Company & Directors' Information:- P L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2013PTC248417

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC164395

Company & Directors' Information:- R A GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC123385

Company & Directors' Information:- C S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC134787

Company & Directors' Information:- B L GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC136912

Company & Directors' Information:- B D S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC137898

Company & Directors' Information:- T G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL2005PTC143392

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U18101DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- G P GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2007PTC161067

Company & Directors' Information:- I B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2013PTC257044

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U74110DL2006PTC149330

Company & Directors' Information:- A G GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51300DL2013PTC257609

Company & Directors' Information:- V R V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2008PTC182256

Company & Directors' Information:- M V GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899HR2005PTC141797

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND R GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17120HR2013PTC049037

Company & Directors' Information:- V K GARMENTS PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1981PTC012410

Company & Directors' Information:- A S GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17212CH1992PTC012350

Company & Directors' Information:- V R GARMENTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101CH1991PTC011345

Company & Directors' Information:- S B GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2005PTC141954

    WRIT PETITION NO.5625 OF 1997

    Decided On, 07 July 2010

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA

    For the Petitioner: M.D. Joshi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, R.P. Powar, Advocate, K.B. Chuodhari, Addl.G.P.



Judgment Text

S.V. Gangapurwala, J.

The petitioner takes exception to the order of his removal dated 31/07/1996 passed by the Executive Director of the respondent No.1, thereby removing the petitioner from the service as Head Accountant with effect from 31/07/1996, and further prays for directing the respondents to take the petitioner on duty as Head Accountant with effect from 31/07/1996 along with salary, increments, back-wages and other benefits.

2. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Head Accountant with the respondent No.1, departmental inquiry was initiated against one Shri P.S. Udawant, Shri N.L. Kundalikar a cashier and the petitioner on 27/03/1995 was issued the charge-sheet, as per the said charge-sheet, charge against petitioner was that the petitioner was guilty of dereliction of his duty by not verifying the character, honesty of Shri Kundalikar and intentionally committing breach of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline), Rules, 1976. The allegations against one Shri P.S. Udawant were of similar nature, whereas Shri Kundalikar was accused of mis-appropriating a sum of Rs. 5,86,016.37 paise. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet denying the allegations. The Executive Director of respondent No.1 appointed one Shri S.G. Muglikar, as an Inquiry Officer. The witnesses came to be summoned and the Inquiry Officer submitted the report. The Board of Directors agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and as such show-cause notice was issued to all three delinquents i.e. Shri P.S. Udawant, N.L. Kundlikar and the petitioner. After receipt of the reply, the Board of Directors of respondent No.1 passed an order of removing petitioner and Shri Kundalikar from service and four annual increments of Shri P.S. Udawant were permanently with-held. The petitioner has challenged the said order of removal before this Court.

3. We have heard Shri M.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.P. Powar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Shri K.B. Choudhari, Addl. G.P. for respondent No.2/State at length.

4. Shri M.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner put-forth following prepositions :-

i) The petitioner was not allowed the assistance of Shri Modak or any other person, during the course of the departmental proceedings and was also not supplied with the relevant documents, as such the inquiry is bad-in-law. According to him, the same tantamounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.

ii) Rule 8(2)) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979 (here-in-after referred to as 'Rules, 1979) are not complied and as such the same vitiates the inquiry itself, inter alia the order of removal based on such inquiry is bad-in-law. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in a case of "Masuood Alam Khan-Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtar and others, reported in 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 68."

iii) There were no allegations of mis-appropriation against the petitioner, the allegations of mis-appropriation were only against Shri Kundlikar and Shri Kundlikar had also accepted his guilt, he had also deposited the amount. Only allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner was negligent in not verifying the character and honesty of Shri Kundlikar. The charge against the petitioner and Shri P.S. Udawant were similar. But Shri P.S. Udawant was imposed a minor punishment i.e. his four increments are only with-held. Whereas the petitioner is ordered to be removed from service and there is discrimination.

iv) The punishment imposed is too disproportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner.

5. Shri R.P. Powar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 strenuously contended that :-

i) In the present case, compliance of Rule 8(20) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 is not mandatory, keeping in view of the facts of the present case. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner by non-compliance of said Rule.

ii) The principles of natural justice were followed, proper opportunity was given to the petitioner.

iii) The charges levelled against the petitioner are proved and his conduct was not that befitting a person holding such a responsible post as Head Accountant, and as such the punishment imposed is proper.

iv) This Court cannot sit in appeal over the departmental proceedings and as such may not interfere with the findings in the departmental proceedings and consequent punishment.

v) The employer had lost faith in the petitioner. It is on record that petitioner has connived with Shri Kundlikar and the employer has rightly dismissed the petitioner.

6. The objection of the petitioner, that he was not provided the necessary documents and assistance of Shri Modak or other senior officer, is without any substance. The presenting officer was not a lawyer and whenever the petitioner asked for the documents, he was provided inspection of the same. From time to time the petitioner was given access and inspection to the documents, as such the objection of Shri M.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner on this count is unsustainable. Shri Powar has rightly pointed out the orders passed by the Inquiry Officer in that regard.

7. The argument of Shri Joshi that Rule 8(20) of the said Rules, 1979 are not followed requires consideration. The said Rule 8(20) of Rules 1979 reads as under :-

"(20) The inquiring authority may, after the Government servant closes his case and shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him."

On perusal of the said Rule, it is manifest that the said Rule mandates the inquiring authority to question the delinquent on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, so that the delinquent may get opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. In the present case, the delinquent has not examined himself. If the delinquent has not examined himself, in that case the Inquiry Officer is not left with any discretion but has to question the delinquent about the circumstances appearing against him. The use of the word shall shows that the said provision is imperative and the same is mandatory. In the first part of the said Sub rule the legislature has used the word 'may', but when the delinquent has not examined himself has used the word "shall", which itself clarifies that the word shall has to be considered as mandatory. The use of the word 'may' at one place and 'shall' at another place in the same rule would strengthen the inference that these words have been used in their primary sense, and that 'shall' should be considered as mandatory. The use of the word 'shall' therein as against 'may' shows that the same is mandatory. The use of the word 'shall' with respect to one matter and the used word 'may' with respect to another matter, in the same rule, would lead to the conclusion that the word 'shall' imposes an obligation. Whereas the word 'may' confers a discretionary powers. If, the delinquent has not examined himself, then it is obligatory on the inquiring authority to question the delinquent on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purposes of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, and if the delinquent has examined himself, then the discretion vests with the Inquiry Officer to question the delinquent or not.

In the present case, it is not disputed that the delinquent has not examined himself, in such circumstances it was mandatory for the Inquiry Officer to question the petitioner regarding the circumstances appearing against him. The said Rule has not been complied, and as such inquiry stands vitiated. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Masuood Alam Khan-Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & others" referred supra has also observed that rule of Audi Alteram Partem is pregnant in the sub-rule(20) of Rule 8, departure there from would tantamount to violation of natural justice. On this count itself the inquiry vitiates, there cannot be any doubt that by non observance of the said rule the petitioner could not get the opportunity to explain regarding the circumstances which were prejudicial to him in the evidence.

8. The other argument of Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner were only of negligence in not verifying the character and the integrity of Shri Kundlikar, and for the same he cannot be held for mis-appropriation. The punishment imposed upon him is shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. One Shri P.S. Udawant was also charged with the same allegation but to him a minor punishment was given. Whereas the petitioner is removed from service, he has been given the same punishment as is given to Shri Kundlikar who had misappropriated the amount needs consideration.

9. Now, it is a settled position that Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness is substituted by the doctrine of proportionality. The Apex Court in a case of "State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Hazarilal, reported in A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 1300" in para No.12 to 14 has observed thus :-

"12:- Furthermore the legal parameters of judicial review has undergone a change. Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness has been replaced by the doctrine of proportionality. (See : Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs. Prabha D. Kumari : (2006) 1) SCC 67 : State of U.P. Vs. Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava : (2006) 3 SCC 276 and M.P.Gangadharan and another Vs. State of Kerala and others : AIR 2006 SC 2360)."

"13 :- At this stage we may also notice the application of the Doctrine by the United Kingdom House of Lords in Seal (FC) (Appellant) Vs. Chief Constable of South Walves Police (Respondent) : (2007) 4 All. ER 177:Haung (FC) (Respondent) V. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department(Respondent) (conjoined Appeals) : (2007) 4 All ER 15: Tweed (Appellant) vs. Parades Commission for Northern Ireland (Respondents) (Northern Ireland) (2007) 2 All ER 273: Belfast City Council (Appellants) Vs. Miss Behavin' Limited (Respondents) (Northern Ireland) (2007) 3 All ER 1007 and R (on the application of Countryside alliance and others) vs. Her Majesty's Attorney General and another (2007) 3WLR 922."

"14 :- It is interesting to note that distinguishing between the traditional grounds of judicial review and the doctrine of proportionality, Lord Carswell in Tweed (Supra) after referring to previous decisions and authorities observed:

"The starting point is that there is an overlap between the traditional grounds of review and the approach of proportionality. Most cases would be decided in the same way whichever approach is adopted. But the intensity of review is somewhat greater under the proportionality approach. Making due allowance for important structural differences between various convention rights, which I do not propose to discuss, a few generalisations are perhaps permissible. I would mention three concrete differences without suggesting that my statement is exhaustive. First, the doctrine of proportionality may require the reviewing court to assess the balance which the decision maker has struck, not merely whether it is within the range of rational or reasonable decisions. Secondly, the proportionality test may go further than the traditional grounds of review inasmuch as it may require attention to be directed to' relative weight accorded to interests and considerations. Thirdly, even the heightened scrutiny test developed in R V Minister of Defence, Ex p Smith (1996) QB 517, 554 is not necessarily appropriate to the protection of human rights."

10. When Shri P.S. Udawant and the petitioner were charged alike, there was no reason for the respondent No.1 to discriminate between the two, nor any reasons are given to impose different punishment for both. The charge found to be proved against the petitioner is that the petitioner did not verify the character and integrity of Shri Kundlikar. For the same punishment of removal from service is too disproportionate and it does not satisfy the test of proportionality. On this count also the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

11. Though we have come to the conclusion that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside, but we are not

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

inclined to order back-wages to the petitioner on the principle of 'no work no pay'. So also the petitioner has not pleaded or proved that during the relevant period, he was not gainfully employed. It has also been brought on record that the respondent No.1 establishment has ceased to function and all the employees in service have been given benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme. As such, we also do not pass any order of reinstatement, and the petitioner would be entitled only to the benefit of voluntary Retirement Scheme as were given to the other employees. 12. In the result, we allow the petition and make Rule absolute and pass the following order :- The order of termination is quashed and set aside. However, since it is brought to our notice, that the respondent No.1's establishment has now ceased to function and all the employees who were in service have been given benefit of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, we are not inclined to direct an order of reinstatement or the back wages. However, we direct the respondent No.1 to give benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme to the petitioner, on par with an equally circumstanced employee, treating the petitioner to be in the employment on the date on which the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was made applicable by the respondent No.1. 13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

13-01-2020 Union of India rep. By its Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai Versus M/s. Raiments & Garments International, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 The General Manager, Aleppy Parcel Service, Alappuzha Versus Anil Kumar V., Managing Partner, Wetex Garments, Poovattuparamba, Kozhikode Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
22-11-2019 The Management Scotts Garments Limited, Trippur Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-10-2019 M/s. PJS Knit Garments, Rep.by its Partner, P. Sugansaran & Another Versus The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Tirupur Main Branch, Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 Chintamaneni Prabhakara Rao @ Prabhakar Versus S.I. of Police, Pedapadu Police Station, West Godavari District High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-08-2019 M/s. Indo Skins Garments Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, N. Thiagarajan, Chennai Versus The Presiding Officer, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2019 The Officer In Charge, Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office & Another Versus M/s Godavari Garments Limited Supreme Court of India
25-06-2019 M/s. Krishna Industrial Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Dr. S.R.K. Prasad, Chennai Versus M/s. Andhra State Finance Corporation, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-04-2019 The District Collector, Kanchipuram Versus M/s. Gupta Garments, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Anil Gupta & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 M/s. Ginni Garments & Another Versus M/s. Sethi Garments & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
04-04-2019 Ginni Garments and Others V/S Sethi Garments and Others. In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
13-03-2019 The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, Salem Division & Others Versus M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor Ibrahim Sha, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-12-2018 Batra Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-12-2018 Goodluck Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus., Surat-II High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
10-10-2018 Kunapureddi Nookamani & Others Versus The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
04-10-2018 Kothuru Gangadhar Versus Tuni Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tuni, East Godavari District & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
24-09-2018 M/s. Premier Garments Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor, Ibrahim Sha, Chennai Versus The Divisional Railway Manager, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2018 Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (Now ECGC Limited), Chennai & Another Versus Zoro Garments Private Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, N.F. Mogrella High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 M/s. Rasathe Garments, Rep by its Partner, Virudhunagar Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I, Virudhunagar High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 Bord for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) Versus Coromandel Garments Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-04-2018 M/s. Sri Rengas Avitta Garments, Represented by its Partner, R. Rajaram & Another Versus R. Indira High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2018 Kandukuri Garments Versus Inspector of Legal Metrology High Court of Karnataka
23-03-2018 Godavari Hatmaag Vastra Nirman Sahakari Sanshta Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-01-2018 M/s. Ghai Construction Engineers & Contractors Versus Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Thr Its Executive Engineer Supreme Court of India
02-01-2018 A. Velumurugan Versus M/s. Sree Shiva Sakthi Garments, Represented by its Partner Venkatachalam, Tiruppur High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-12-2017 Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited V/S Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, West Godavari District and Others HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
04-12-2017 Dr. Reddy?s Laboratories Limited, Visakhapatnam, reptd by its Director-Finance-P.Sivarama Krishna Versus Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, West Godavari District & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
24-10-2017 The District Collector (BCW), West Godavari District & Others Versus K.V. Ramana In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
26-07-2017 Creative Garments Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E. & S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
19-05-2017 Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Belgaum V/S Godavari Bio-refineries Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
10-02-2017 The Management of Foundation Garments Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director ?Divine Grace? Versus Government of Tamil Nadu Labour & Employment (A1) Department, Represented by its Principal Secretary High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2017 B. Sharon, East Godavari Dist & Others Versus P. Rani, West Godavari Dist. & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
19-01-2017 R.K. Rajkumar Proprietor M/s. Koghima Garments Versus The Registrar Debts Recovery Tribunal - III Spencer Towers Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2017 Kitex Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director-Sabu M. Jacob Versus State of Kerala, represented by Principal Secretary To Government, Taxes (H) Department & Another High Court of Kerala
02-01-2017 Sonal Garments V/S Commr. of Cus., Seaport (Import), Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
30-09-2016 J.U.M. Rao, E451 173, APSRTC Driver East Godavari Dist. Versus A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Managing Director & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
15-09-2016 M/s. Rasathe Garments Versus The Commercial Tax Officer-I (FAC) Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-09-2016 Carol Garments & Another Versus The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-06-2016 S. Gopi, Proprietor, M/s. Bangalore Prasanna Perfumes Versus Sri Jai Sai Enterprises, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-06-2016 M/s. Oxygen the Digital Shop, Pulimoottil Arcade, Kottayam & Another Versus Namadevan.L., Anna Garments & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
08-04-2016 Suresh Chand Jain Versus Godavari Devi Jeswani & Others High Court of Delhi
12-02-2016 M/s. Anjal Garments Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-01-2016 Y. Balaramaiah Versus The Executive Engineer Public Health Division Rajahmundy East Godavari District (State of A.P.) & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
13-10-2015 State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Collector, West Godavari District & Another Versus Srimat Kandala Raghavacharyulu & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
05-10-2015 V. Vidhyadharan Versus National Research Centre for Oil Palm, Rep. by the Director West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
05-10-2015 Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
15-09-2015 Battina Subbalakshmi Versus The Kovvur Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Kovvur, represented by its Secretary, Kovvur, West Godavari District & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
24-08-2015 Provident Fund Commissioner Versus M/s. Bena Garments High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-07-2015 The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Visakhapatnam Versus M/s. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
05-06-2015 M/s. Triven Garments Ltd., represented by its Managing Director & Others Versus State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2015 SCM Garments (P.) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-III, Coimbatore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
19-02-2015 M/s. Godavari Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. RNR Enterprise & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-01-2015 Gadde Krishna Murthy & Others Versus The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sitanagaram, East Godavari District & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
19-12-2014 Chittuluri Srinivasarao Versus Sub-divisional Police Officer, Kakinada East Godavari District & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
18-12-2014 The Chairman & Board of Directors, Godavari Grammena Bank & Another Versus S. Ramesh Kumar & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
18-12-2014 Nelly Garments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
02-12-2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Godavari Drugs Ltd. In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
26-11-2014 Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-II Versus Ankit Garments Manufacturing Co. High Court of Delhi
24-11-2014 Kunapureddy Kondal Rao & Others Versus The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, Yeleru Reservoir Project, Unit-I, Peddapuram, East Godavari District & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
07-11-2014 KMC Textiles & Garments, rep.by its Proprietor, Shaj Mohammed Versus The Chief Manager & Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Trichy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-10-2014 M/s. Sri Bhargavi Agro Tech, ?Gayathri House?, Union Territory of Pondicherry India, rep., by its Managing Partner M. Durga Prasad Chowdary Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT), Kakinada, East Godavari & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
29-10-2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry Versus M/s. Godavari Electrical Conductors, Kadiam, East Godavari District In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
24-10-2014 Board of Investment of Sri Lanka Versus Million Garments (PVT) Ltd. Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
26-09-2014 Santhammatalli Mahilasakthi Sangam (DWCRA), East Godavari District Versus The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its District Collector, Kakinada & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-09-2014 The Land Acquisition Officer, Special Deputy Collecotr, SRSP, Pochampad Versus Godavari In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
28-08-2014 Sakthi Fashions, Manufacturers & Exporters of Fabrics and Garments, Represented by its Proprietrix Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, Represented by its General Manager Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
11-06-2014 National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus M/s. Ess Ell Garments Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
01-05-2014 Sri Priyaluckshmi Garments Represented by Mrs. G. Mahalakshmi, Partner & Others Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-04-2014 Vijay Karlekar, Proprietor, M/s. New Keerthi Garments & Another Versus Karnataka State Financial Corporation & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-04-2014 M/s. RSR Infra Works (India) Pvt. Ltd, Godavari Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
25-04-2014 In Re Jagadamba Garments Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-02-2014 M/s. Lakshya Garments through its Proprietor Versus National Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-01-2014 Nambaru Ramu Versus M.R. Prasanna Kumar, Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, East Godavari District & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
23-10-2013 Danala Appa Rao & Another Versus The District Collector and Magistrate, East Godavari at Kakinada & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
25-09-2013 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Versus M/s. Anjali Silks & Garments High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2013 Nadiminti Varalakshmi & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-07-2013 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Rep. by its Divisional Manager Versus Polisetti Satyavathi, West Godavari District & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
14-06-2013 Rytu Depot, Draksharama, East Godavari District & Others Versus Rajyalakshmi Agencies & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
26-04-2013 M/s. Viking Garments, (A Partnership Firm) Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-04-2013 A.J. Ramadoss Versus S. Padmavathy and N. Sankar(spouse) Om Siva Sakthi Garments National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2013 Parasa Nagamalleswararao Versus Sub-Registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-11-2012 The Commissioner of Central Excise Visakhapatnam Versus Ms. Godavari Electrical Conductors & Others Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
14-11-2012 CC&CE, Guntur Versus M/s. Kandukuri Garments (P) Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
05-11-2012 National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Resu Godavari & Others Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
12-10-2012 M/s. C.S. Garments & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2012 Commissioner of Income Tax Versus First Garments Manufacturing Co. India (P) Ltd High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2012 Sayapuraju Venkata Rama Raju, East Godavari District Versus Sayapuraju Suryanarayana Raju & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
27-06-2012 Seetharama Swamy Temple, Rep. by Managing Trustee & Chairman, P. Venkateswar Rao & Others Versus The Revenue Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, East Godavari District & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
11-06-2012 Godavari Devi Sharma & Others Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Gauhati
06-06-2012 M/s. Amex Garments Pvt. Ltd. Ekkattuthangal, Guindy, Rep. by Director Versus The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2012 M/s. Kitex Garments Ltd. Versus CC, Cochin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
15-03-2012 M/s. Lavanya Enterprises, West Godavari District Durgamalleswara Swamyvaarla Devasthanam & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
28-02-2012 Kali Prasad Babu Rice Traders, Rep., by its Proprietor T.N.S.V.S. Krishna Murthy, Gunupudi, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District & Others Versus The Union of India, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public Distribution, New Delhi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
07-02-2012 Kunapareddy Prasad Versus The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
05-01-2012 Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad & Another Versus M/s Godavari Rubber Industries (P) Limited, Rep. by its Director, Rajahmundry High Court of Andhra Pradesh
23-12-2011 M/S. Shyam Garments & Others Versus State Bank Of India High Court of Delhi
21-12-2011 M/s. Raghavendra Ware Housing, H & T Contractor Versus The State of A.P., Rep. by The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
09-12-2011 Godavari Laxmi Co-op. Bank Ltd. Versus The Union of India & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
02-12-2011 Pasala Padma Raghava Rao Versus The Collector, East Godavari District & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
25-11-2011 Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam Versus M/s NACL, Unit II, Ganti Village, East Godavari Dist.(A.P).) Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore