TSS INDIA & ASSOCIATES
TSS INDIA & ASSOCIATES
Case: State vs. Isha Gautam & Ors.
Bail Application Nos.: 2069/21, 2071/21, 2073/21, 2082/21 & 2083/21
FIR No.: 243/2021, P.S. Jagat Puri
Sections: 419/420/120-B/34 IPC & 66C/66D IT Act
Court: Hon’ble ASJ-04, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Date: 01.07.2021
Our client was one of the 80 accused in a large-scale call centre fraud case. The prosecution alleged involvement in a fraudulent telemarketing operation under the IT Act and IPC provisions. Through detailed case analysis, evidence scrutiny, and effective argumentation, we successfully secured bail for our clients, ensuring their liberty while the matter proceeded in due course.
Case Title:Wife vs. Husband
Case No.: 14/2022
Court: Judicial Magistrate, Churu, Rajasthan
In this matter, the wife filed an interim maintenance application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), seeking monetary relief under Section 20 of the same Act.
She claimed maintenance expenses to pursue her Ph.D. course, asserting that the husband was legally bound to support her education as part of her living and personal expenses.
The husband, represented by TSS India & Associates, contested the claim on legal and factual grounds.
After considering the arguments and submissions, the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate, Churu, found merit in the defense and dismissed the interim maintenance application.
The Court agreed that the claim for funding a Ph.D. course could not be categorized as a maintenance requirement under the PWDV Act.
This decision safeguarded the husband’s legal rights and reaffirmed the principle that maintenance is meant to provide subsistence, not to finance optional educational pursuits.
Our client, Mr. Rahul, was aggrieved by a conviction order passed by the trial court in a criminal case. Believing that the judgment suffered from legal and factual errors, TSS India & Associates was engaged to represent him in an appeal before the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Dwarka.
The primary contention raised was that the trial court’s findings were unsupported by proper evidence, and the conviction was based on misappreciation of facts and law.
The firm conducted a detailed review of the entire trial record, identifying inconsistencies and procedural lapses that affected the fairness of the proceedings.
Our legal submissions focused on:
Demonstrating lack of sufficient evidence to sustain conviction.
Highlighting procedural irregularities during investigation and trial.
Presenting clear arguments showing that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Through comprehensive written and oral submissions, the defense established that the trial court’s decision could not stand judicial scrutiny.
Case Title: State vs. Surender Pal Singh & Ors.
Court: Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
FIR Nos.: 141/1987 (PS Murad Nagar) & 110/1987 (PS Link Road, Ghaziabad)
Sections: 147, 148, 149, 364, 307, 302, 201, 120-B IPC
Date: 16 December 2024
TSS India & Associates, through Adv. Atul Singh, effectively presented the matter before the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge (West) for compliance with the Supreme Court’s order. The firm ensured:
Proper coordination with the Supreme Court Registry for receipt of the official order.
Timely appearance and presentation before the Tis Hazari Court.
Preparation and filing of bail bonds and surety documents.
Advising clients on court-imposed conditions and compliance mechanisms.
This case reflects the firm’s commitment to ensuring justice and due process, particularly in long-pending criminal appeals where liberty and procedural fairness intersect. It also highlights our expertise in handling complex Supreme Court-directed compliance matters.
Case Title: M/s Star India Marketing Company vs. M/s Parsvanath Stationery House
Court: District Judge (Commercial Court–01), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Case No.: CS (COMM) 203/2021
Date of Judgment: 04 November 2022
Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Shri Sanjay Sharma-I
Counsel for Plaintiff: Adv. Atul Singh (TSS India & Associates)
Our client, Mr. Yogesh, had applied for an affordable housing unit in the project “Landmark The Homes 81” developed by the opposite party, M/s SRV Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram.
After paying the registration and application fees, followed by multiple instalments totalling several lakhs, the client awaited the Builder Buyer Agreement and other documents.
At TSS India & Associates, we represent consumers in disputes against real estate developers, ensuring that buyers’ rights are upheld and unfair practices are challenged effectively.
Through precise documentation, legal expertise, and strategic litigation, our firm continues to deliver justice and relief for clients across India.
Case Title: Lok Kalyan Samiti vs. Acharya Kriplani Memorial Trust
Court: Additional District Judge–01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
Case No.: CS 56063/16
Date of Order: 12 October 2023
Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Vijeta Singh Rawat
Local Commissioner: Adv. Atul Singh (TSS India & Associates)
Case Study: Virender Kumar Garg (M/s Ambica Steels) vs. M/s Anand Enterprises
Court Details
Court: District Judge (Commercial Court–01), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi
Presiding Officer: Shri Amit Kumar, Ld. District Judge (Commercial Court–01)
Case No.: CS (COMM.) No. 97/2025
Date of Institution: 13 February 2025
Date of Decision: 08 May 2025
Case Study: M/s Shree Siddhi Vinayak Industries vs. State Tax Department
Office of the Additional Commissioner (Appeal)-2, State Tax, Ghaziabad
Section 129(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017
Case Study:M/s H & B Stores Ltd. vs. State Tax Department
Office of the Additional Commissioner (Appeal)-2, State Tax, Ghaziabad
Appeal No. GST1/ZD090525084051G(2025), FY 2024–25
Under Section 129(3) of the IGST Act, 2017
Case Study: M/s Aliza Enterprises vs. State Tax Department.
Office of the Additional Commissioner (Appeal)-2, State Tax, Ghaziabad
Appeal No. GST1/ARN-AD090725008597N/2025
Under Section 129(3) of the IGST Act, 2017
Assessment Year: 2025–26
The appellant, M/s Aliza Enterprises, based near Kuraishi Shadi Hall, Moradabad (GSTIN: 09AGWPR7101H1ZW), filed an appeal under Section 129(3) of the IGST Act, 2017 against an order imposing tax and penalty related to goods in transit.
During inspection, a goods vehicle bearing registration number UP21CT0518 was intercepted at the Ghaziabad toll plaza. The vehicle was transporting goods purchased by M/s Aliza Enterprises from M/s Shree Parvati Steels under valid tax invoices and e-way bills dated 19.04.2025.
The tax authorities, however, detained the goods and raised a demand of approximately ₹2,53,062/-, alleging irregularities and non-compliance under the GST transit provisions.
Case Study:M/s Kesar Singh & Sons vs. State Tax Department
Office of the Additional Commissioner (Appeal)-2, State Tax, Sonbhadra
Appeal No. AD090725054128U, FY 2025–26
Under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017
The appellant, M/s Kesar Singh & Sons, based in Hauz Qazi, North Delhi, filed an appeal under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 against the order dated 26.06.2025, passed by the State Tax Officer, Sonbhadra.
The dispute arose when the vehicle bearing registration no. PB06BHT689 was intercepted at Lodhi Toll Plaza, Sonbhadra, while transporting goods accompanied by invoices and e-way bills. The goods belonged to M/s Kesar Singh & Sons, and the supply was made to M/s Vedha Enterprises, Bhilwara (Rajasthan) and M/s Ship Vedha Enterprises, Sonbhadra (U.P.).
The tax authorities detained the goods, alleging discrepancies in documentation, and imposed a tax and penalty demand of ₹2,63,762/- under Section 129(3) of the Act.
