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



Vimal v/s Abbott healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24200MH1997PTC104834

Company & Directors' Information:- ABBOTT INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L24239MH1944PLC007330

Company & Directors' Information:- R G S HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110PB2004PTC047381

Company & Directors' Information:- R G S HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110CH2004PTC027689

Company & Directors' Information:- P. H. HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33110MH2010PTC208651

Company & Directors' Information:- B G P HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24232GJ2007PTC050417

Company & Directors' Information:- D R HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110GJ2006PTC048008

Company & Directors' Information:- M J HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090PN2008PTC132455

Company & Directors' Information:- G J HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110PB1998PTC021049

Company & Directors' Information:- I M HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24232CH2010PTC032454

Company & Directors' Information:- K G HEALTHCARE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TZ1995PLC006402

Company & Directors' Information:- C S HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110GJ2012PTC070018

Company & Directors' Information:- M M HEALTHCARE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PLC034339

Company & Directors' Information:- S A HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85100OR2014PTC018365

Company & Directors' Information:- AND HEALTHCARE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2017PLC046446

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND R HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24239DL1999PTC102404

Company & Directors' Information:- K. N. HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85320RJ2018PTC061003

Company & Directors' Information:- M S HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24239MH2001PTC130893

Company & Directors' Information:- J. R. HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85191UP2013PTC054982

Company & Directors' Information:- M A P H HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U85100WB2010PTC144870

Company & Directors' Information:- N. C. HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85191DL2007PTC164437

Company & Directors' Information:- VIMAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24231DL1999PTC099648

Company & Directors' Information:- N M HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110MH2000PTC125392

Company & Directors' Information:- A R HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110CH2013PTC034820

Company & Directors' Information:- I P HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24239DL2003PTC121211

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85100DL2015PTC281658

Company & Directors' Information:- A P HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24230MH1999PTC122520

Company & Directors' Information:- T.H.E. HEALTHCARE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U33111MH2012PTC229451

Company & Directors' Information:- S V T HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85100TZ2009PTC015287

Company & Directors' Information:- P R HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U24231DL2003PTC120123

Company & Directors' Information:- R S M HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24232DL2005PTC136255

Company & Directors' Information:- M H HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2016PTC289311

Company & Directors' Information:- N T HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100DL2012PTC241304

Company & Directors' Information:- R A HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85190DL2009PTC188221

Company & Directors' Information:- P D HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24230GJ2004PTC045131

Company & Directors' Information:- L. V. G. HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24233GJ2006PTC047749

    WP. No. 10001 of 2019

    Decided On, 04 March 2020

    At, High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

    For the Petitioner: In person. For the Respondents: R1, Romesh Dave, Learned Counsel.



Judgment Text


1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 28.3.2019, whereby the reference has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the dispute does not fall within the jurisdiction of the labour court.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Key Account manager and was working as sales promotion employee with the respondent-Company, which is involved in sale of medicines and providing health care services and the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 22.4.2017. The Labour Commissioner, Indore had made a reference to the Labour Court in respect of correctness and validity of termination of the petitioner's services. Petitioner had Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 04/03/2020 18:17:39 filed the claim before the Labour Court with the plea that he had worked on the different posts; such as Marketing Executive, Sr. Marketing Executive, Dy. RBM and Key Account Manager but the basic work of the petitioner was of medical representative and his initial appointment was in the year 2008 and he was covered within the meaning of Workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act of 1976"). A further plea was raised that his services were terminated by adopting unfair labour practice, without conducting any enquiry and without giving any retrenchment compensation.

3. The respondent by filing the reply had taken the stand that the petitioner was an employee of the managerial capacity and his main work was of management and administration and he had the power to spent up to Rs.5,000/- per month, hence he does not fall within the meaning of workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and his services were terminated by following the due procedure.

4. The Labour Court had permitted the parties to lead evidence and had decided the first issue, as to whether the petitioner was appointed in administration and managerial capacity or he falls within the meaning of workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act? Labour Court has reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was appointed as Medical Representative and was doing the sales related work independently and he does not fall within the meaning of workmen under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Accordingly the reference has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

5. The petitioner in person submits that the labour Court has not taken into account the provisions contained in Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 04/03/2020 18:17:39 Section 6(2) of the Act of 1976 and it has also not taken into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2000(7) SCC 675, in the matter of H.R. Adyanthaya and others Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and others reported in 1994(5) SCC 737 as also the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of R.R. Iyer Vs. R.P.G. Life Sciences Ltd. reported in 2010 MPLSR 312.

6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the issue that the medical representatives are not workmen, has already been decided by the Division Bench judgment of this Court, and the judgments of the Supreme Court which the petitioner is relying upon are rendered in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

7. Having heard the petitioner and counsel for the respondent No.1, it is noticed that undisputedly the petitioner was working as Medical Representative with the respondent. The issue in this regard came up before the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sanat Kumar Vs. Parke Davis (India) Ltd. reported in 1997 LLR 21 wherein after considering Section 6(2) of the Act of 1976 and the requirement of Section 2(s) of the ID Act, it has been held that:-

"11. This goes to show that a person engaged in managerial or administrative capacity or if, employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred per month shall not come within the definition of workman.

12. We have perused the petition and the reply filed by respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge. The Company has made an averment in para-4 that Sanat Kumar (appellant here) was working in managerial capacity and his salary was more than Rs.1600. In para 5.8 it has been further pleaded that Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 04/03/2020 18:17:39 respondent No. (appellant have) draws a salary of Rs.5725 p.m. plus perquisites. In reply to para 5, 8 of the petition, appellant, who was respondent No.4, has made an averment that his bare salary was Rs.3,425 p.m. from April 90. Thus, in any way, admittedly the salary of the appellant was more than Rs.1600 p.m. In such a situation he will not come within the perview of a 'workman'."

8. In the present case also the clear stand of the respondent-Company is that the petitioner was working in the managerial capacity and was drawing the salary of much more than Rs.1,600/- per month. The same issue came up before the Division Bench recently in the case of Novartis India Ltd. Vs. Vipin Shrivastava and others in WA No.75/2017, wherein by order dated 11.10.2018 the Division Bench has reiterated the earlier position that the medical representatives or sales representatives in a pharmaceutical company cannot be treated to be workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. In this regard it has been held that:-

"14. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the question as to whether a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act mainly depends upon the nature of the industry, type of work in which he is engaged, organizational set up of particular unit of industry and other factors. In the present case, the respondent was engaged as Sales Representative in a Pharmaceutical Company. His primary duty was to visit doctors, chemists as well as stockists. Meeting different professionals to promote sale of product of the appellant cannot be said to be manual or clerical work as it requires knowledge of product, its uses and also persuasive skills. The respondent may not be controlling any subordinate but he was master of the work assigned to him. The manner of performing the job was solely in the discretion of the respondent. The interest of the management was that the Medical Representative should achieve the sales target. The supervisory capacity necessarily has to be examined keeping in view the manual, unskilled, skilled, clerical work and the person performing such work is a workman. May be, he does not supervise any person but he is the master of his own affairs reporting to management only in respect of quantification of sales, therefore, a Medical Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 04/03/2020 18:17:39 Representative cannot be treated to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act.

15. The judgment in H.R. Adyanthaya's case (supra) has come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Samat Kumar v. M/s Parke Davis India Ltd., 1997 (2) JLJ 353 wherein the reference to Labour Court was subject matter of challenge on the part of the management. Though the workman was said to be working as Area Sales Manager in managerial capacity drawing salary of more than Rs.1,600/-, therefore, he was not a workman but while examining the scope of Adhyanthaya's case (supra), the Court has held that the work of promotion of sales of the product or services of the establishment is distinct from and independent of the types of work covered by the said definition under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The relevant extract of the Division Bench judgment reads as under:-

"10. As against it, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has placed reliance on a case as reported in 1988 (II) MPWN 116 = AIR 1988 SC 1700 (Miss A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa, Deman & Diu and others) whereby it was held that teacher employed in a school is not a workman. But, now dispute stands resolved with respect to the cases of Medical Representative as reported in AIR 1994 SC 2608 [H.R. Adyanthya etc. etc. v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. etc. etc.) whereby it has been held that 'Workman' does not include all employees except those covered by four exceptions in said definition of section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act. Medical Representatives do not perform duties of 'skilled' or 'technical' nature and therefore, they are not 'workmen'. The connotation of word 'skilled' in the context in which it is used, will not include work of a Sales Promotion Employees such as Medical Representative. That word has to be construed ejusdem generis and thus construed, would mean skilled work whether manual or non-manual, which is of a genre of the other types of work mentioned in the definition. The work of promotion of sales of the product or services of the establishment is distinct from and independent of the types of work covered by the said definition."

After returning such finding it was held that the reference was not maintainable as Medical Representative would not fall within the definition of workman. We are not only bound by the aforesaid judgment but we find the same to be a correct enunciation of law.

16. Learned Single Bench of this Court in German Remedies Limited's case (supra) relying upon H.R. Adyanthaya's case (supra) held that the Medical Representative is a workman. The relevant extracts of the said decision in German Remedies Limited's case read as under:-

"14. With regard to meet out, the objections - the petitioner about the status of respondent No. 2, whether he would be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has to be dealt with. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider a similar question in a judgment H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and others [(1994) 5 SCC 737]. The Apex Court in the said case was considering the status of Medical Representatives and the Apex Court came to the conclusion that since there had been an Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 04/03/2020 18:17:39 amendment in the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also by virtue of the provisions of Section 6 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 makes application to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as in force for the time being, therefore, the Apex Court held that a Medical Representative shall be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

15. The aforesaid judgment passed by the Apex Court had also been considered by the Rajasthan High Court in Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. v. Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur and Another 2001- II-LLJ-559 (Raj.) and also by Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ripu Daman Bhanot v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana and Ors. 1997-I-LLJ-557 (P&H). The aforesaid two High Courts have also dealt with the similar questions and relying upon the ratio of Sandoz's case (supra) held that Medical Representative is a workman for the purpose of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

16. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the two High Courts based upon the earlier judgment passed by the Apex Court in Sandoz's case (supra), this objection of the petitioner also cannot be accepted."

The Single Bench in German Remedies Limited's case (supra) has misread the judgment in H.R. Adyanthaya's case (supra) to hold that Medical Representatives are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. In fact, three categories were created by the Supreme Court. In respect of the Medical Representatives engaged prior to enactment of SPE Act w.e.f. 06.03.1976, they were held not governed either by ID Act or SPE Act. In respect of employees whose services were terminated after 06.03.1976, the appeals were dismissed for the reason that it is not the case of the employees that their wages were less than Rs.750/- per month excluding commission, therefore, the SPE Act did not apply to them. The only dispute which was referred to Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 was in respect of transfer of the employees affected on 16.02.1988. The Supreme Court found that the definition of workman under ID Act will not cover the sales promotion employees within the meaning of SPE Act. The argument raised that the sales promotion employees are skilled or operational employees was not accepted. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Bench is not the correct reading of H.R. Adyanthaya's case (supra) and is, thus, overruled.

17. A Division Bench of Patna High Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Bihar (2016) 149 FLR 528, held as under:-

"9. The Sales Promotion Employee as defined under the SPE Act as reproduced above includes any person by whatever name called (including an apprentice) employed or engaged in any establishment for hire or reward to do any work relating to promotion of sales or business, or both. The main provision is wide enough to include all categories of employees engaged for hire or reward to do any work relating to promotion of sale of business. The petitioner falls within such category. As admittedly, he was appointed as a person to promote sale of the pharmaceutical products, as is evident from Charge Sheet dated 13th December, 2002, which is to the effect that Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 04/03/2020 18:17:39 the appellant has failed to achieve the targets of sale of group of medicines. The notice (Annexure2 to the writ petition) itself recites the appellant as a Medical Representative. Therefore, he is a Sales Promotion Employee. But there is exclusion clause of Sales Promotion Employees and not all Sales Promotion Employees are the employees within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the SPE Act. The employees who are employed or engaged in supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs.1,600/- per mensem is the first category which are not the Sales Promotion Employees. The second category is the employees who are employed or engaged mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity."

18. In view of the said fact, the Award passed by the learned Labour Court and the order passed by the learned Single Bench is set aside holding that the Medical Representative is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act and Section 2(d) of the SPE Act. The appeal stands allowed and disposed of."

9. So far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of German Remedies Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1, Bhopal and others (2006 Vol.II, LLJ 8 MP) relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, the same has already been overruled in the case of Novartis India Ltd. (supra). Petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of H.R. Adyanthaya (supra), but the Division Bench in the case of Novartis India Ltd. (supra) has considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.R. Adyanthaya (supra) and has held that in that case also the Supreme Court had found that the definition of workmen under the ID Act will not cover the sales promotion employees within the meaning of SPE Act. So far as the reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rhone- Poulenc (India) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, in that case exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution the reference was made to the Industrial Cour

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t and so far as the Division Bench judgment of this Court relied upon by the petitioner in the case of R.R. Iyer (supra) is concerned, in that Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 04/03/2020 18:17:39 case the reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd. (supra), though the power under Article 142 of the Constitution is not available to the High Court. That apart, while passing the judgment in the case of R.R. Iyer (supra), the earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Sanat Kumar (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Court. 10. Petitioner has also relied upon the Single Bench order dated 17.9.2019 passed in WP No.2499/2017 in the case of UCB India Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Addl. Labour Commissioner, Indore and others, but that being a Single Bench judgment is of no help to the petitioner as the issue is settled by the Division Bench judgment. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the issue which the petitioner is raising, is concluded against him by virtue of the Division Bench judgment in the matter of Novartis India Ltd. (supra). In this view of the matter the judgments of Single Bench and Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court and Rajasthan High Court relied upon by the petitioner are of no help to him because the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Novartis India Ltd. (supra) has binding effect on this Single Bench. 12. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in reaching to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The petition is devoid of any merit, which is accordingly dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

22-07-2020 Alchemist Healthcare Ltd. & Another Versus Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Others High Court of Delhi
19-06-2020 M/s. Healthcare Reforms Doctors Association Versus The Special Chief Secretary to Government Health Medical & Family Welfare Department Secretariat Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-05-2020 Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Versus Zuventus Healthcare Ltd. High Court of Delhi
24-02-2020 Roche Products (India) Private Limited & Others Versus Cadila Healthcare Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 Vimal Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary/Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Abbott Healthcare Private Limited, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory (Prabhat Ranjan), Mumbai Versus Commissioner of State Tax Kerala High Court of Kerala
13-12-2019 Alkem Laboratories Ltd V/S Deccan Healthcare Ltd High Court of Delhi
27-11-2019 Dr. Vimal Vincent Versus Revenue Division Officer/Sub Collector, Revenue Divisional Office, Irijalakuda, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
15-11-2019 M/s T.C. Healthcare P. Ltd. & Another Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 The Manager, Vimal Jyothi Engineering College, Kannur & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
04-11-2019 Vimal Singh Versus The State of Goa, through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
31-10-2019 GSK Consumer Healthcare S.A Versus EG Pharmaceuticals & Others High Court of Delhi
18-10-2019 M/s. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Represented herein by its authorized Signatory, Satish Padmanabhan Versus M/s. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US)LLC & Others High Court of Karnataka
24-07-2019 Association of Healthcare Providers (India) Versus Government of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
22-07-2019 Vimal & Others Versus Santosh & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
17-07-2019 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Manager (Legal Hub) Versus Vimal Babasaheb Hulgunde & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-07-2019 Natco Pharma Limited Versus Bayer Healthcare LLC High Court of Delhi
04-07-2019 Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. Versus Sahrudya Health Care Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
02-07-2019 Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus Swisskem Healthcare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-06-2019 Girdhar Brijmohan Maru Versus Vimal Lalchand Mutha & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
28-05-2019 Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented By Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus C.A. Vimal & Others High Court of Kerala
28-05-2019 Vinod Kumar Vimal Versus The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
23-05-2019 Abbott Healthcare Private Limited V/S Union of India and Others High Court of Delhi
24-04-2019 Abbott Healthcare Private Limited and Others V/S Union of India and Others High Court of Delhi
16-04-2019 Vimal Marwah Versus Logix Infratech Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-04-2019 Cadila Healthcare Limited and Others V/S Union of India and Others High Court of Delhi
10-04-2019 Pharmacosmos Holding A/S Versus La Renon Healthcare Private Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
01-04-2019 V. Vimal Versus The District Collector, Cuddalore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2019 Vimal & Another Versus Deepak & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
13-03-2019 Vimal Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
01-03-2019 Commr. of C. Ex. And Cus., Aurangabad V/S Encore Healthcare Pvt. Ltd In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
25-02-2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Supreme Court of India
18-02-2019 Hetero Healthcare Ltd. & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
14-02-2019 V.R.G. Healthcare Private Limited, Nagpur & Another Versus Ganesh Ramchandra Chakkarwar National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
12-02-2019 Vimal Nayan & Others Versus The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Headquarters Preventive Unit, Chennai North Commissionerate, Nungambakkam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2019 M/s. Vasan Healthcare P Ltd., Chennai Versus The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-01-2019 Jhulan Majumdar Versus Glaxo Smith Kine Consumer Healthcare Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-01-2019 Helsinn Healthcare S.A., Versus Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Et Al. Supreme Court of United States
22-01-2019 Helsinn Healthcare S.A. Versus Teva Pharmaceuticals Usa, Inc., ET AL.(2019) Supreme Court of United States
16-01-2019 Vimal Tiwari Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-01-2019 M/s. Aculife Healthcare Private Ltd., Gujarat Previously Known as Nirma Limited (Healthcare Division), Represented by Its Regional Sales Manager, Ajish Mathew & Another Versus The Kerala Medical Service Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Managing Director & Others High Court of Kerala
02-01-2019 M/s. Perfint Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Versus California Institute of Computer Assisted Surgery Inc. High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2018 Vimal Chaudhary Versus Manjeet Singh High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
28-11-2018 Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Versus Competition Commission of India & Another High Court of Delhi
26-11-2018 Vimal Jain Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
21-11-2018 M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-11-2018 Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd V/S Competition Commission of India and Others High Court of Delhi
13-11-2018 Vimal Kumar Soni Versus CPIO, Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya Amreli, Amreli Central Information Commission
01-11-2018 Vimal Chandrunwal Versus Brilliant Alloys P. Ltd. & Others National Company Law Tribunal Chennai
25-10-2018 Medsave Healthcare (TPA) Ltd Versus Addl Cit, New Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi
17-10-2018 Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd. & Another Versus Gomabai Netralaya, Neemuch Through Trusty, Vimal Goyal & Others Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
04-10-2018 Chief Post Master, Tehsil & District-Balaghat (M.P.) Versus Vimal Bothra Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
17-09-2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Versus M/s. Dedicated Healthcare Services (TPA) India Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-09-2018 Cadila Healthcare Limited and Others V/S Competition Commission of India and Others High Court of Delhi
12-09-2018 Cadila Healthcare Limited & Another Versus Competition Commission of India & Others High Court of Delhi
14-08-2018 Vimal Arackal Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kannamali Police Station & Another High Court of Kerala
03-08-2018 Condor Healthcare Private Limited & Another Versus M/s. Corem Pharma Private Limited In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
01-08-2018 S.A. Galderma & Another Versus Medsea Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
10-07-2018 M/s. Perfint Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By its Board of Directors N. Nandakumar Subburaman & Others Versus California Institute of Computer Assisted Surgery Inc. High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2018 Cadila Healthcare Limited V/S Union Of India And Others Supreme Court of India
02-07-2018 Fr. Thomas Melvettath, Chairman, Vimal Jyothi Engineering College, Kannur District Versus The All India Council for Technical Education, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasaan Kunju, Represented By Its Member Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
22-05-2018 Santanu Roy Versus TTK Healthcare TPA Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-05-2018 The Procter & Gamble Company Versus Midas Healthcare Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
21-03-2018 Wockhardt Limited V/S Maha Avtar Healthcare Pvt. Ltd High Court of Delhi
09-03-2018 Cadila Healthcare Limited and Others V/S Competition Commission of India and Others High Court of Delhi
09-02-2018 M/s. Omega Healthcare Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kamalraj Chandrasekaran High Court of Karnataka
07-02-2018 Vimal Kumar Verma Versus Kavita Verma & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-02-2018 Urmil Chopra Versus Fortis Healthcare (India) Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-01-2018 Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd V/S C.C.E., Jaipur-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
03-01-2018 Abbott Healthcare P. Ltd. Versus Raj Kumar Prasad & Another High Court of Delhi
14-12-2017 Commissioner of C. Ex. , Thane-II V/S Astamed Healthcare (I) Pvt. Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
11-12-2017 Lt. Col. (Retd). J.S Ahluwalia Versus Fortis Hospital, Fortis Healthcare Ltd., & Others Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
04-12-2017 Inventia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
24-11-2017 In the Matter of: M/s. RNB Design Arc Systems Versus M/s. Trivitron Healthcare Private Limited National Company Law Tribunal Chennai
22-11-2017 T. Vimal Viswanath Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-11-2017 Vimal Flexsol Limited and Others V/S Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ahmadabad Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
10-11-2017 Neelkanth Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Versus Neelkanth Minechem, Partnership Firm High Court of Rajasthan
07-11-2017 Bajaj Healthcare Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
21-09-2017 Vimal Gupta Versus Executive Engineer, Dakshinanchal Electricity Dist. Nigam High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-09-2017 K-Link Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others V/S Commissioner of Customs (AIR), Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
12-09-2017 Navodaya Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Others Versus Vimal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2017 Cadila Healthcare Limited V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
23-08-2017 TTK Healthcare Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai IV Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
16-08-2017 VLCC Healthcare Ltd V/S CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
03-08-2017 Schiller Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd V/S Commr. of Customs, Mumbai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
03-08-2017 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore Versus Union of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Through its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
13-07-2017 Aviat Healthcare Pvt. Ltd V/S CCE, Belapur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
10-07-2017 Vasu Healthcare Private Limited Versus Gujarat Akruti TCG Biotch Limited & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
30-06-2017 VLCC Healthcare Limited V/S CC (Prev.), New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
22-06-2017 M/s.MMC Healthcare (HP) Pvt. Ltd., & Another Versus State represented by the Drugs Inspector, Valasaravakkam Range High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-06-2017 TTK Healthcare Limited Versus S.R. Bio Future Labs High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-05-2017 Vasan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Versus Alcon Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
10-05-2017 Vimal & Another Versus Judge, Accidental Claims Tribunal, Churu High Court of Rajasthan
03-05-2017 M/s. K-Link Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Kerala & Others Supreme Court of India
19-04-2017 Firm Radha Krishna Vimal Kumar Ltd. Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-04-2017 State of Maharashtra Versus Vimal & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-03-2017 Vimal Dairy Limited Versus Kaira Dist. Co. Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
08-03-2017 In Re: M/s Kiran Enterprise Versus M/s Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Competition Commission of India
02-03-2017 The Belgaum District Chemists & Druggists Association Versus Abbott India Ltd. & Others Competition Commission of India
02-03-2017 Vimal Razdan & Another Versus State of Rajasthan & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench