Deprecated: Optional parameter $level declared before required parameter $message is implicitly treated as a required parameter in /home/u423685564/domains/ on line 351

Deprecated: Optional parameter $type declared before required parameter $list is implicitly treated as a required parameter in /home/u423685564/domains/ on line 106



  • Commissioner Customs Calcutta Vs. Indian Oil Corporation
    The Firm represented Indian Oil Corporation before the CEGAT as well as the Supreme Court on a demand of Rs.1950 crores (approximately USD 400 Millions) for payment of customs duty on demurrage charges The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue [reported in 2004 (3) SCC 488].
  • Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
    The Firm represented Shaw Wallace before the Supreme Court contesting an income tax demand running into several hundred crores which was set aside by the Supreme Court. The question also arose with regard to the power of rectification of mistake by ITAT.
  • Great Eastern Shipping Vs. State of Karnataka
    Acted for G.E. Shipping in an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the sales tax imposed on Charter Party Agreements.
  • MP Cement Manufacturers Association Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
    Acted for the MP Cement Manufacturers Association before the Supreme Court wherein the Court quashed the imposition of an Electricity Cess imposed by the Madhya Pradesh Government on Captive Power Plants involving a total duty of over Rs.100 crores. [reported in 2004(2)SCC 249]
  • State of Chhattisgarh Vs ACC and Others
    Representing a group of companies Monnet Isapt and Energy Ltd, Prism Cement, Aditya Birla Group and Mysore Cement in a batch of petitions filled against various assesses regarding imposition of an Electricity Cess on Captive Power Producers.
  • Home Solutions Ltd. Vs. Union of India
    Filed a Writ Petition on behalf of Home Solutions Ltd. and other companies challenging a notification and a circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, levying Service Tax on lease rent of immoveable property. In a landmark judgment the Delhi High Court, set aside the aforesaid notification and circular as being ultra virus the Finance Act. [2009 (158) DLT 722]. The issue is now pending before the Supreme Court wherein the Firm is representing Shopper’s Stop, Home Solutions, PVR- amongst others.
  • State of Gujarat Vs. Essar Oil Ltd
    Represented Essar Oil Ltd against the State of Gujarat in the Supreme Court in a matter pertaining to the eligibility of Essar Oil under the State’s Sales Tax Incentive Scheme. Under the Scheme, Essar Oil would have been entitled to an sales tax incentive for 17 years had it commenced commercial production of its Oil Refinery in Gujarat by a specified date. Essar Oil was unable to commence production by the specified date for factors beyond its control and the State denied it the benefit even though it was registered under the Scheme. The Apex Court finally decided the dispute.
  • Entry Tax matters
    Various States have enacted Entry Tax legislations, which levies Entry Tax on goods purchased and bought into a said State from outside that State. The Constitutional Validity of these legislations has been challenged and a bunch of these matters, arising from different States, is pending reference before a Larger Bench in the Supreme Court. We represent Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., Hindalco Industries, the Essar Group, Reliance ADA Group, Ultratech Companies in these matters.
  • Cess on Construction matters
    The Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Act imposes Cess @ 1% on any Building and Other Construction activity. The question is whether this Act applies to such Buildings and other Construction activities to which the Factories Act applies as well. This question is now before the Apex Court, wherein ALA is representing Hindalco Industries and the Essar Group.


  • SEBI Vs. MCX
    Represented the MCX before the Supreme Court, wherein the Supreme Court directed the SEBI to reconsider its decision of not permitting the MCX to operate as a specialized stock exchange dealing only in derivatives.
  • Canara Bank Vs. Standard Chartered Bank
    Acted for Standard Chartered Bank in the Supreme Court in relation to a security transaction worth INR 500 million. [reported in 2002 (10) SCC 697]
  • Punjab National Bank Vs. State Bank of Saurashtra
    Acted for Punjab National Bank in the Supreme Court in an appeal arising from securities transaction involving issues relating to the rights of a purchaser of securities over interest, dividend, rights issues and bonus etc. Decree to an extent of INR 1820 million in favour of PNB was confirmed by the Supreme Court. [reported in 2001(5) SCC 751]
  • Citi Bank Vs Canbank Financial Services
    We represented Citi Bank before the Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the Special Court holding Citi Bank to be involved in Securities scam.
  • Harinarayan G. Bajaj Vs UOI & Others
    We are representing Mr. Bajaj (largest minority shareholder of Sesa Goa Limited) before the Supreme Court against the judgment of Bombay High Court declaring the Take-over of Sesa Goa Limited by Mitsui (a Japan based company) as being not covered by the SEBI Take Over Code 1994.
  • Clariant Vs. Securities Exchange Board of India
    Acted for Clariant in the Supreme Court against an order of SEBI Appellate Tribunal. This case laid down the law on eligibility of persons entitled to interest on the delay in making a public offer. [reported in AIR 2004 SC 4236]


  • On behalf of Shopper’s Stop in the year 2005 and for Reliance Power in the year 2008 secured order from the Supreme Court orders protecting the issue from any restrictive orders from any court in India.


Several cases relating to shareholders disputes including petition for oppression and mismanagement under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act have been successfully handled by the Firm before the Company Law Board.

  • Bhadresh Shah Vs. Magotteaux International Ltd.
    The CLB on an application moved by us on behalf of Magotteaux International granted partial stay of the petition in view of the arbitration clause [reported in 2001(2)CLJ 496].
  • Desein Vs. Elektrim India Ltd.
    The CLB on a petition filed by us on behalf of Desein ordered investigation into the affairs of a subsidiary of the foreign partner [reported in 2001(3) CLJ 459].
  • BPL Mobile Communication
    On an application moved by us the CLB partly vacated the interim order passed by it in relation to the affairs of BPL Mobile Communications. On appeal filed by us the Bangalore High Court vacated the entire interim order.


  • ICICI Bank Ltd v APS Star Industries
    Successfully represented Kotak Mahindra & Standard Chartered before the Supreme Court wherein it was held that inter-se transfer of debts/NPAs between banks is a permissible activity [reported in 2010 (10) SCC 1]
  • Modi Entertainment Vs. Prasar Bharti
    Acted on behalf of Modi Entertainment in a suit wherein bank guarantee issued in favour of Prasar Bharti was injuncted on the plea of fraud and invocation contrary to contract.
  • HUDCO Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji
    Acted for Shapoorji Pallonji against the challenge to an arbitration award made by HUDCO before the Delhi High Court. The Court decided the issues of excepted matters and specific exclusion under the contract. Since excepted matters were specifically referred to arbitration the court held that the arbitrator has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same.
  • Mitsui Babcock Vs. BSES
    Acted on behalf of Mitsui Babcock wherein the court injuncted BSES from invoking the bank guarantee contrary to a contract, leading to the settlement of the entire arbitration claim.
  • Great Eastern Shipping Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
    We represented G.E. Shipping in a complaint whereby it was awarded insurance claim on the damage arising out of the fire. The claim of the insurance company that the cover ended upon delivery of the goods to G.E. Shipping has been rejected by the National Commission (NCDRC) and the Supreme Court. [reported in AIR 2007 SC 2556].
  • Modi Entertainment Networks Ltd. Vs. WSG Cricket Pte. Ltd
    Acted for Modi Entertainment before the Supreme Court whereby the Court, in a landmark judgment decided the scope of the power of Indian Courts to grant anti-suit injunction against a party who has initiated legal proceeding out of India. [reported in 2003 (4) SCC 341]
  • Global Steel Phillipines Inc. Vs. State Trading Corporation of India
    Acted for a Swiss Company M/s. Metinvest International Ltd. (beneficiary under the Letter of Credit), against GSPI, to successfully defend an action for injunction on encashment of a letter of credit worth 15 million dollars on the basis of an alleged force majeure situation having arisen under the sales contract was dismissed.


  • Cox & Kings Vs. Thomas Cook
    A complaint was filed by us on behalf of Cox & Kings restraining Thomas Cook from making comparative advertisements for foreign tours of major travel companies. The MRTP granted an injunction restraining Thomas Cook from making comparative advertisement and the injunction was finally confirmed by the Supreme Court.
  • Cement Cartelization
    We successfully defended a complaint of cartelization made against Cement Companies before the MRTP.
  • Reliance Big Pictures v Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC)- Competition Commission of India
    Represented Reliance Big Pictures before the Competition Commission of India against the discriminatory ban imposed by KFCC against Hindi films by limiting the number of theaters for their release.
  • Ajay Devgn Films v Yash Raj Films Ltd- Competition Commission of India & Competition Appellate Tribunal
    Represented Ajay Devgn Films in respect of tying-in arrangements for Cinema screens for the movie 'Son of Sardar'.
  • Santukha Associate v USV Ltd- Competition Commission of India
    Defended USV Ltd in respect of a boycott called by the Drug Manufacturers’ Association.
  • Big CBS Ltd v Tata Sky- Competition Commission of India & Competition Appellate Tribunal
    Prosecuting a case for Big CBS in respect of non-carriage of television channels by Tata Sky.


  • CBI v Keshub Mahindra
    Represented Mr. Keshub Mahindra, (Ex-Chairman Mahindra & Mahindra) in a Curative Petition filed by the CBI against a previous judgment of the Supreme Court framing charges under S 304-A IPC instead of S 304(2) IPC in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy matter. The Supreme Court dismissed the Curative Petition filed by the CBI. [reported in 2011 (6) SCC 216]
  • Iridium India Telecom Ltd v Motorola Incorporated
    Successfully represented Iridium before the Supreme Court, wherein it was held that criminal liability of a corporation would arise when an offence is committed in relation to the business of the corporation by a person or body of persons in control of its affairs. [reported in 2011 (1) SCC 74]


  • Madras Refineries Ltd. Vs. SPIC Petrochemical Ltd.
    Acted on behalf of Madras Refineries Ltd (MRL) in a suit before the Madras High Court exercising shareholders right in the Arochem Project. The Madras High Court granted an injunction in favour of MRL and ultimately the Supreme Court confirmed the said injunction in favour of MRL leading to a settlement of the claims.
  • LML Ltd. Vs. Piaggio
    Represented LML before the Kanpur District Court, Allahabad High court, Supreme Court and Arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce in a shareholders dispute between the promoter of LML and their foreign collaborator/Piaggio. Interim orders were passed by all courts in favour of LML and the disputes were finally resolved.
  • Modi Entertainment Vs. Fashion TV
    Represented Modi Entertainment in a suit for injunction before the Delhi High Court against the attempt of Fashion TV to abandon the joint venture and set up an independent TV channel and distribution network.


I. National Environment Appellate Authority:

  • Defended Indiabulls in respect of allocation of water for their Amravati Power Project;
  • Defended Monnet Ispat Ltd in respect environmental clearance provided to it for setting up an integrated Steel Plant;

II. National Green Tribunal:

  • Defending Lavasa Ltd in respect of the environmental clearance provided by MoEF for its project near Pune;
  • Defending DCW Ltd in respect of an off-take of VCM from ships to a terminal within a CRZ area;
  • Defending Essar Steel India Ltd in respect of their Integrated Steel Plant in Orissa;
  • Sought permissions and sanctions for Indiabulls & DB Realty for carrying out construction activities

III. Supreme Court:

  • Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. Hallar Utkarsh Samiti
    Represented Essar Oil (EOL) in a public interest litigation filed against EOL interalia contending that permission cannot be granted under Wild Life Protection Act for setting up marine facilities in Marine National Park Area. Orders passed by the Gujarat High Court were set aside by the Supreme Court holding that such permissions are permissible and thus cleared the Rs 10,000 crores EOL Refinery Project. [reported in 2004 (2) SCC 392].
  • Bombay Environmental Action Group Vs. Sahara India Housing Ltd
    On behalf of Sahara, the Firm contested the challenge to the development of the famous Amby Valley project by Sahara Housing near Lonawala. The challenge made by BEAG was dismissed by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court on an opposition made by us.
  • Tata Hydro Electric Ltd. Vs. Aegis Chemicals Ltd
    The construction of the gas storage plant by Aegis Chemicals at Thane was challenged by Tatas before the Bombay High Court. The said Challenge was contested by us on behalf of Aegis and both the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court cleared the project and the said storage facility is operational.
  • Sasan Power Ltd.
    On behalf of Sasan Power, secured the Environmental clearance for an Ultra Mega Power Project of 4000 MW from the Supreme Court.


  • Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
    On behalf of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. we opposed the appeal and the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment that the name and reputation acquired by the company would give it rights to prevent others from using the trademark for unrelated business and activities also. [reported in 2002 (2) SCC 147]
  • Sahara TV vs. Star TV
    In a suit filed by us on behalf of Sahara, Start TV agreed to modify the name of it's Television Channel from 'ONE' to 'STAR ONE'
  • Bajaj Auto Ltd Vs TVS Motors Ltd
    We acted on behalf of Bajaj Auto Limited in a Special Leave Petition against the vacation of an injunction granted in favor of Bajaj Auto Ltd restraining the infringement of the Patent of Bajaj Auto (DTSi) by TVS Motors. At the initial stage only the Supreme Court was prima-facie satisfied that TVS Motors had infringed the Patent of Bajaj Auto (DTSi) and restrained TVS Motors from selling its Motor Cycles using the DTSi Technology.
  • Cadilla Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marking Federation (Popularly known as "AMUL")
    A suit was filed by the plaintiff a leading Pharmaceutical Company of India against our clients AMUL which is the largest Cooperative Society in India alleging infringement and passing off of its registered Trade Mark “Sugar Free”. The Court held in our favor of AMUL upholding our contention that the phrase “Sugar Free” is a generic expression and is not capable of being monopolized.
  • Super Cassettes Vs. You Tube
    We are acting on behalf of You Tube Incorporated in a suit of alleged infringement of copyright initiated by the Super Cassettes. The core question for consideration before the courts is whether You Tube is responsible for the acts of infringement committed by its customers, especially when the website has a specific disclaimer asking all its customers not to upload any video on which they do not have copyright control.
  • Exide Industries Ltd v Exide Technologies-Delhi High Court
    The suit was with respect to the trademark ‘Exide’. Where the plaintiff was the prior user of the said trademark in India. The question for determination was whether the prior user in a particular territory can injunct a user of an identical trademark who may be a prior user in another territory. The Court held that trademarks are territorial and if no user is established in a particular territory mere user abroad would not give to the holder of a trademark right to injunct another user who has established prior use for the given territory.


  • Olympus Superstructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meera Vijay Khaitan
    Acted for Olympus Superstructure wherein the Supreme Court held that disputes relating to specific performance of a contract can be referred to arbitration; Disputes in connection with the main agreement and the subsidiary agreement is covered by the general arbitration clause in the main agreement; Arbitral Tribunal is invested with the power to rule in its own jurisdiction [reported in 1999 (5) SCC 651].
  • Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Pandya
    The Supreme Court held that a suit in respect of a matter which falls partly within the arbitration agreement and partly outside and which involves some parties who are not parties to the Arbitration Agreement cannot be mandatorily referred to arbitration [reported in 2003 (5) SCC 531].
  • ONGC Vs. Saw Pipes
    The Supreme Court while considering the scope of interference with an arbitration award under the New Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 expanded the scope of challenge by interpreting the word ‘public policy’ to include anything contrary to law or contract. [reported in 2003 (5) SCC 705]
  • Thyssen Krupp Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd
    Represented Thyssen Krupp before the High Court of Delhi where the jurisdiction of an Arbitrator when passing an arbitral award was considered.


  • Right to Education matter
    Represented various private schools in a challenge before the Supreme Court to the constitutional validity of the Right to Education Act, 2010, wherein private schools to earmark 25 per cent seats for economically weaker students.


  • Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd v State of Orissa
    Successfully represented BPSL in the Supreme Court against the State of Orissa, wherein the Supreme Court directed the Orissa Government to recommend the case for grant of iron ore reserves to the central government for the Bhushan Power & Steel’s 2.8 million tonne-integrated steel plant at Lapanga, Orissa.
  • The Firm also has an established practice before the Mines Tribunal wherein it represents several Clients, namely, Sarawagi & Co., Essar Steel, Monnet Power & Steel, amongst others.


  • Successfully represented Reliance Entertainment in getting 'John Doe' injunctions from the Delhi High Court to prevent the illegal broadcast or streaming of its upcoming film Bodyguard and Singham. A 'John Doe' Order gives protection to the intellectual property owner i.e. Reliance Entertainment, from copyright violation by prospective anonymous offenders.
  • Prakash Jha Productions Ltd v UOI & Ors
    Successfully represented M/s Prakash Jha Productions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the release of the film ‘Aarakshan’, which was banned in Uttar Pradesh by the State Government. [reported in 2011 (8) SCC 372]
  • 2G License Cancellation matter
    Represented Loop Telecom in a PIL filed in the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of the 2G Licenses granted in the year 2008 by the Government.
  • BPL Communications Vs. DoT
    Various disputes relating to charges for rent and guarantee and other contractual disputes have been handled by us on behalf of BPL before the TDSAT and the Supreme Court. The TDSAT has set aside the demand of DoT in favour of BPL. The matter is now pending before the Supreme Court.
  • Internet Service Providers' Association of India Vs. VSNL
    In an issue relating to tariff fixation for leased ports for internet gateways and power of TRAI to fix tariffs for the same, our contention on behalf of VSNL contesting the jurisdiction of TRAI was upheld.
  • Cellular Operators Assn of India Vs. Union of India, Reliance Communications
    On behalf of Reliance Communications we successfully defended a petition filed by an association of GSM Operators challenging the decision of the Government of India of allotting GSM Spectrum to CDMA Operators. The petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble TDSAT and CDMA Operators were allowed to use GSM Spectrum. This was one of the biggest litigation relating to Telecommunication Laws in India. All the Telecommunication Companies Operating in India were parties to the litigation.
  • Hathway Cable Networks Vs. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.
    A petition was filed against our clients, namely, M/s. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., a leading broadcaster of Sports Programmes in India, seeking stay on the disconnection notice. We successfully defended the interest of our clients and the petition was dismissed. The question involved in the petition pertained to interpretation of various notifications and circulars issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regarding conduct of Cable Television Business in the country.


  • State of Meghalaya and All India Lotteries Federation
    Various writ petitions have been filed by the Firm on behalf of our clients for the protection of the Rs.50,000 crores (USD 10 Million) Lottery industry. Various issues relating to the Lotteries Regulation Act arise in the cases including the power of the State Governments to prevent other States from running lotteries in their respective States.


  • Polar Pharma Vs UOI
    Represented the condom manufacturers and have challenged certain tender conditions which have been put in the tender documents.
  • Reliance Energy Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board (2007)
    Represented Reliance Energy before the Supreme Court and retendering was directed after the tender process was cancelled as being vitiated by fraud and malafides.
  • Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India
    A petition was filed by Tata Power challenging the award of contract for developing a Ultra Mega Power Project in the State of Madhya Pradesh in favour of M/s. Reliance Power Ltd. We successfully contested the said petition on behalf of M/s. Reliance Power Ltd. and got the petition dismissed in limine. The said litigation was an extremely high stake litigation in as much as the future of the entire project which ran into several thousands of crore was at stake.
  • Nuance AG with Shoppers Stop Ltd.
    Represented Nuance AG and Shoppers Stop Ltd in a challenge made to the tender by a private airport.


We have conducted the amalgamation/merger, demerger and reduction of:

  • Represented Idea Cellular in the merger of Spice Telecom with Idea Cellular
  • Represented NDTV in the merger of its Mauritian Subsidiary into the Indian Company
  • ALSTOM Transport and Alstom System Ltd. with Alstom Power (I) Ltd.
  • Balsara Hygiene Products Limited, Besta Cosmetics Limited and Balsara Home Products Limited with Dabur India Limited.
  • Param Industries Limited with Ruchi Soya Industries Limited. Somani Marketing Private Limited and Indo Risk Management Services Limited with Northern Exim Private Limited.
  • Modern Food Industries (India) Limited and Modern Food and Nutrition Industries Limited with Hindustan Lever Limited.
  • Godavari Corporate Services Private Limited with Godavari Shilpkala Limited.
  • SGS Tekniks Private Limited, SGS Tekniks Manufacturing Private Limited with SGS Holding and Leasing Private Limited.
  • Globe Foods Private Limited and Kodagu Foods Private Limited with Globe Detective Agency Private Limited.
  • Connexant Systems (India) Private Limited and Conexant Systems (PB) Private Limited with Conexant Systems Noida Private Limited. Hybrid Rice International Private Limited with Proagro Seed Company Private Limited.
  • Idea Telecommunications Ltd. with Idea Cellular Limited.
  • Allianz Infratech Private Limited with Telespice Wireless Private Limited. Hyprotech India Private Limited with Aspentech India Private Limited.
  • Quippo Engineering SEZ Private Limited and Quippo Infrastructure Equipment Limited.
  • Schenker India Private Limited with BAX Global India Private Limited.
  • Doosan Babcock Energy India Private Limited and Doosan Engineering and Services India Private Limited.
  • RBC Motors India Limited with Marathon Electric Motors (India) Limited.
  • Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited and Direct Internet Limited and VSNL Internet Services Limited.
  • Samsung Telecommunications India Private Limited and Samsung India Electronics Private Limited.
  • Eicher Goodearth Holdings Private Limited and Eicher Holding Private Limited and Eicher Goodearth Limited and Eicher Limited and Eicher Goodearth India Private Limited.
  • SAM Global Securities Limited with SMC Global Securities Limited.
  • New Holland Tractors (India) Private Limited and Fiat India Private Limited.
  • New India Finance Limited reduction of share capital before the High Court of Delhi.
  • Shree Herbal Technologies Limited with Indoco Remedies Limited.
  • Third Millennium Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (TMT) And Chandigarh Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (CFL) with SPR Techno Print Pvt. Ltd. (SPR).
  • Paxar India Private Limited and RVL Packaging India Private Limited and Avery Dennison (India) Private Limited.
  • The De-merger of the Chemical division of Bayer Industries Ltd. was conducted by us before the Delhi High Court and the entire process was completed in a record time of 30 days.
  • Reduction of capital of Bharat Shell Limited
Back to Top