abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Industrial Development Corporation Limited." 2. The brief facts of the case, as are stated by the applicant in the instant application are that, online tenders were invited by the applicant herein vide eNIT No. SIDCO/Const. Div. 2nd/eTendering 3/OMS/CETP Lassipora, Pulwama dated 25.05.2017 for the work of design, manufacture, engineering, procurement, installation, testing and commissioning of "Leather Tannery" based Online Monitoring Systems (OMS) for existing 600 KLD CETP at Industrial Growth Centre as per the CPCB guidelines for repairing, replacement of nonworking equipments of existing 600 KLD CETP including ReCommissioning/AMC of the whole place at IGC Lassipora and after receipt of online tenders, the nonapplicant herein was found to be successful and the lowest tenderer, as such, came to be allotted the contract vide order dated 20.06.2017 for an amount of ₹64,75,000/, followed by the execution of an Agreement dated 27.07.2017, whereafter the nonapplicant started the work in question from September, 2017 and after executing the same initially for a period of eleven (11) months, the same was not completed well within the prescribed time, besides the noticing of certain deficiencies therein the work in question and despite the requests made and notices issued in this regard to the nonapplicant herein for completion of the work although the payments for the period from October, 2017 to August, 2018 had been paid to the nonapplicant amounting to ₹60,39,104/, the nonapplicant failed to execute the allotted work as Arb. P No. 22/2022 Page 2 of 11 2025:JKLHCJMU:4193 per the allotment order well within time and instead, filed a Reference before the Council, raising false and frivolous claims therein along with interest thereof amounting to ₹66,93,592/ (principal amount) with ₹23,34,120/ (interest), more so, when under the Act of 2006, the nonapplicant had no locus to invoke the provisions of the said Act as being not registered under the said Act of 2006, as also in presence of Clause 18 of the Agreement, which provided for resolution of disputes/differences through arbitration of the Managing Director of the SIDCO as well as owing to Clause 19 of the said Agreement, which provide for the jurisdiction through judicial intervention of the High Court of J
through its President Rajesh Gupta, M.P. Management Company & others) Jabalpur, Dated: 20.07.2020 Hearing convened through Video Conferencing: Mr. Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K.Kaurav, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.P.Shroti, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the orders dated 3.3.2020 passed by respondent No.5, dated 4.3.2020 passed by the respondents No.6, and dated 2.3.2020 passed by the respondent No.7 filed collectively as Annexure P/9 with this petition, wherein following reliefs have been claimed: "(A) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, send for the record of the petitioner's case. (B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 2.3.2020, 3.3.2020 and 4.3.2020 by the respondent No.5, 6 and 7 respectively. (C) As per the guidelines issued by the Government of India for the PSU's the contractor who are affiliated with the MSME be granted 25% of the work in question. (D) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in view of aforesaid facts and grounds may kindly be allowed in favour of the petitioner." At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents states that three NITs which were subject matter of dispute in this writ petition have since been withdrawn and therefore, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. The fact of withdrawal of the said NITs by the respondents is not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. However, a prayer was made that so far as relief made in Clause (C) of Para 7 of the petition to the effect that "as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India for the PSU's the contractor 2 who are affiliated with the MSME be granted 25% of the work in question", is concerned, the same still survives for consideration and he may be permitted to raise this issue as and when occasion so arises. In view thereof, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy in respect of the relief sought in Clause (C) of Para 7 of the petition, as available to it, in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) Chief Justice Judge C/ Digitally signed by CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Date: 2020.07.21 12:38:27 +05'30'
Delhi High Court Next Generation Business Powers ... vs Telecommunication Consultants India ... on 21 January, 2025 $~ * % Judgment Pronounced on: 21.01.2025 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 61/2019 NEXT GENERATION BUSINESS POWERS SYSTEMS LTD ..... APPELLANT versus TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD ..... RESPONDENT Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr. T.S. Ahuja, Mr. Varun S Ahuja and Ms. Ridhi Kapoor, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Ratan K Singh, Sr Advocate with Mr. Nikhlesh Krishnan, Ms. Ritika Priya, Mr. Abhishek Bhushan Singh, Advs. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU JUDGMENT TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface............................................................................2 Contentions of the Appellant.................................................6 Contentions of the Respondent...............................................8 Analysis and Findings.........................................................11 Claim for Deducted Withheld Amount of Rs. 60.01 lacs with interest......................................................................11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:27.01.2025 FAO(OS) (COMM) 61/2019 Page 1 of 42 16:04:49 Claim for ATS Support of Rs.14,64,203/.................................28 Claim for 32nd Quarter.........................................................36 Conclusion........................................................................39 PREFACE 1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as "A&C Act"] against the judgement dated 22.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP (COMM) 17/2017 captioned Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. v. Next Generation Business Power Systems Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Judgment"]. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge has partly upheld an award dated 23.08.2014 [hereinafter referred to as "Arbitral Award"] passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator. 2. An Appeal was also filed by the Respondent before this Court being FAO(OS)(COMM) 171/2019 captioned Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. (TCIL) v. NGBPS Ltd. By an order dated 28.05.2024, the Appeal filed by the Respondent was dismissed by this Court with directions for the release of the amounts deposited by the Respondent before the Court in favour of the Appellant. 3. At the outset and as is recorded in the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the challenge in the present Appeal was confined by the Appellant to only three findings; (i) The claim for deducted/withheld amount of Rs. 60,01,890/ with interest thereon; Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:27.01.2025 FAO(OS) (COMM) 61/2019 Page 2 of 42 16:04:49 (ii) The claim for amounts deducted in the 31st quarter in respect of Annual Technical Support (ATS) for Rs. 14,64,203/;
Delhi High Court Orders Ansal Housing Limited vs Vikas Agarwal on 29 May, 2025 $~32 * + CM(M) 2104/2023 & CM APPL. 65979/2023 & CM APPL. 1827618277/2025 ANSAL HOUSING LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Tiwari, Mr. Kumar Deepraj and Ms. Arushi Rathore, Advocates versus VIKAS AGARWAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Zorawar Singh, Mr. Jayant Rastogi and Mr. Shubham, Advocates HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN ORDER % 29.05.2025 1. Matter has been amicably settled between the parties. 2. As per information given by learned counsel for both the parties, the following amount was deposited by the petitioner: Amount deposited before District Amount deposited before State Commission Commission Rs. 90,41,114/ Rs. 40,45,313/ 3. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 90,41,114/ which was deposited before the learned District Commission, the respondent has already withdrawn a sum of Rs. 12 lacs and, therefore, the present balance pending the aforesaid two Commissions is under: Before District Commission Amount deposited before State Commission Rs. 78,41,114/ Rs. 40,45,313/ 4. In terms of the compromise, the decreeholder submits that his decree would stand satisfied if he is permitted to withdraw a total amount of Rs. CM(M) 2104/2023 1 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be reverified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/06/2025 at 23:50:46 1,13,00,000/ (Rs. 35,00,000/ out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 40,45,313/ from the learned State Commission and Rs. 78,00,000/ from the learned District Commission out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 78,41,114/) and the balance amount with interest accrued, if any, on the entire such amount is permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner herein i.e. M/s Ansal Housing Ltd. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the aforesaid settlement, his decree would stand satisfied and he would make appropriate request in this regard before the learned District Commission where his Execution Petition is pending further adjudication. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has also no objection to the aforesaid proposal and, therefore, the present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms and let the amount be, accordingly, permitted to be withdrawn by the respective parties in terms of the abovesaid arrangement. Once the withdrawal is made, the decreeholder would make appropriate statement before the learned Executing Commission stating that decree stands satisfied. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that compromise has been done in view of the peculiar facts of the case and, therefore, suc
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal Tamil Nadu S And S Communications (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Excise on 21 November, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995(77)ELT563(TRICHENNAI) ORDER S. Kalyanam, Vice President 1. Shri Sampth the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is with reference to the petitioner's eligibility to the benefit of Notification 175/86, dated 131986 which has been denied in the impugned order of the learned Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore dated 1951992 on the ground that the petitioners used the logo and brand name of ITI in their product and therefore not eligible for the SSI exemption. It was submitted that the total duty is Rs. 18,16,953.27 besides penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/ on the petitioner levied for the period 141992 to 3131993 and out of the same the petitioner already paid Rs. 5,75,839/ on 161993 and the same is also referred to in the impugned order. The learned Counsel submitted that the question relating to the applicability of the same for the manufacturers visavis the brand name has been referred to the Supreme Court in similar appeals in terms of Section 35H of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the Tribunal consequent on the conflicting views between the Karnataka High Court and the Calcutta High Court, while the Karnataka High Court has held that the relevant provision is constitutionally valid, the Calcutta High Court has held that the provision is ultra vires under the Constitution. The Allahabad High Court has also taken a similar view taken by the Calcutta High Court. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case as the Tribunal has done in similar cases, we grant waiver of predeposit of balance of duty and panalty and refer this matter also to the Supreme Court through the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal in terms of Section 35H of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The Registry is directed to list this appeal also along with other similar appeals. We also grant stay of the recovery of the balance pending disposal of the matter by the proper authorities.
Madras High Court M/S.Concrete Products & Construction ... vs Union Of India on 6 December, 2021 O.P.No.185 of 2015 DATE D : 06.12.2021 The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY O.P.No.185 of 2015 and Application Nos.2120 to 2123 of 2015 M/s.Concrete Products & Construction Company Rep. by its Joint Managing Partner No.398, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. ... Petitioner Vs 1.Union of India Owning Southern Railway, Rep. by the Principal Chief Engineer, Headquarters Office, Works Branch, Chennai – 600 003. 2.Mr.R.K.Dash Chief Materials Manager/SGT, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, Odissa – 751017. ... Respondents _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1 of 18 O.P.No.185 of 2015 PRAYER : This Petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 praying to set aside the Arbitration Award dated 03.03.2014 passed by the second Respondent in the dispute between the Petitioner and the first Respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.Abishek Jenasenan for Mr.A.Jenasenan For Respondents : Mr.C.V.Ramachandramurthy ORDER The claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal is the Petitioner herein. An Arbitral Award dated 03.03.2014 (the Award) is assailed. 2. An agreement was entered into between the Respondents and the Petitioner for supply of 2,94,400 numbers of prestressed mono block concrete sleepers (PSC Sleepers) at a price of Rs.1194/ per unit exclusive of taxes and with price variation. The original delivery period was two years and 37 days, i.e. from 19.11.2009 to 25.12.2011 with a permissible variation of + or – six months as regards time and + or – 30% as regards quantity. According to the Petitioner, as regards the Ambattur Concrete Sleepers Plant (the ABU Plant), the original monthly target was fixed at _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 18 O.P.No.185 of 2015 10,000 numbers. Such monthly target was reduced from time to time. For instance, the Petitioner asserts that the monthly target was reduced to 3000 numbers by communication dated 26.07.2011 from the Respondents and to nil by communication dated 10.11.2011. Consequently, it is contended that it was not possible to meet the over all delivery schedule. In such circumstances, a request was made to the Respondents to consent to the assignment of the contract to a sister concern of the Petitioner. Such request was declined. The Respondents, however, by communication of 03.02.2012, agreed to reduce the total quantity by 30%. Eventually, by communication dated 02.11.2012, the Respondents terminated the contract with effect from 20.10.2012 and proceeded to initiate action for the forfeiture of the security deposit and for the imposition of liquidated damages at 5% on the value of unsupplied and undelivered sleepers. The Petitioner herein initiated arbitral proceedings in the above facts and circumstances. 3. The Petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.4,49,90,340/ along with interest
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ________________________________________________________________________ Shri Sankalp Sharma Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Jitesh Sharma Government Advocate for the respondent/State. ________________________________________________________________________ ORDER This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs : "a) Allow the present petition and quash the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Learned Xth Additional Sessions Judge, District Morena, M.P. in the ST.No.140/2016, and thereby allow the application filed under Section 348 of the BNSS (S.311 of the Cr.P.C). b) Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case." 2. On 17.05.2025 a specific question was put by this Court as to whether the application under Section 311 CrPC was filed by the petitioner, who claims himself to be the complainant, or it was filed by the Public Prosecutor. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA SEN Signing time: 20052025 10:39:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHCGWL:11279 2 3. It is submitted by Shri Sankalp Sharma that the application was filed by the complainant and not by the Public Prosecutor and accordingly it is fairly conceded that in the light of Section 301(2) CrPC as well as Section 225 CrPC, the complainant can merely assist the Public Prosecutor and cannot conduct the trial. However, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Murarka vs. State of West Bengal and another 2019 SCC Online SC 1495 by order dated 20.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1727/2019 has considered the situation where the case of the complainant is not being contested efficiently and accordingly the counsel for the petitioner relied upon paragraph 12.5 of the aforesaid judgment. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The supreme Court in the case of Rekha Murarka (supra) has held as under : "12. In light of this, we now proceed to consider the extent to which such assistance can be accorded. As mentioned supra, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has argued that there may be instances where the Public Prosecutor may fail to perform his functions properly, whether deliberately or due to oversight, which may obstruct justice instead of furthering it. To meet the ends of justice in such cases, he submitted that the role of the victim's counsel should not be limited to filing of written arguments as provided with respect to pleaders engaged by private parties under Section 301(2). Instead, it should extend to making oral arguments and examining witne
stated that the present case has been filed by one Shri Alok Aggarwal who is a partner of the Plaintiff and is well conversant with the facts of the case based upon the records maintained by the Plaintiff and is duly authorised to file the present suit. 3. It is stated that the present suit is filed against the defendant for recovery of dues towards cost of supply of stainless steel railing and other ancillary items supplied to the defendant under Purchase Order dated 28.07.2009 for installation of the said material in the flats constructed at the Commonwealth Games Village, New Delhi. It is stated that this was a very prestigious project and the main contract was awarded by the Delhi Development Authority to one Emaar MGF Construction Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Principal Contractor) for construction of the flats who in turn subcontracted some of the works to the present defendant. The defendant thereafter issued Purchase Order dated 28.07.2009 bearing reference number No. ACIL/CWGV/JULY'09/2009/000000 dated 28.07.2009 to the Plaintiff for supply of the aforesaid material for an amount of Rs.3,35,99,380/. The terms of the payment stipulated that 10% advance was to be released against bank guarantee or cheque as advance, 80 % of the purchase cost was to be released on receipt of material at site and the remaining 10% was to be released after installation. It is further stated that as per clause 3 of the general terms and conditions of the Purchase Order it was stipulated that all articles which were not up to specification or of standard quality were to be returned under intimation to the Plaintiff within 15 days of their supply. CS DJ NO.10219/2016 OZONE Architectural Products Vs. Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limted Page 2 of 40 4. It is stated that the in terms of the Purchase Order an amount of ₹ 33,59,998/ was paid as advance against cheque issued by the Plaintiff. It is stated that in terms of the Purchase Order, the Plaintiff supplied all the goods as were required as per the work progress at the site. It is further stated that the on 28.07.2009 itself a Work Order was issued on Ozone Matrix Private Limited, a sister concern of the plaintiff to complete the fixation and installation of the stainless steel railings in the railing of the flats. It is stated that the Plaintiff supplied the goods as per the requirements of the defendant and any delay whatsoever was caused due to nonapproval of typical drawings for each tower and making the site available for installation of the stainless steel railings. 5. It is stated when the Plaintiff supplied the material to the defendant thorough its invoices and vide demand notice requested the defendant for release of 80% of the invoice amount as per the terms of the Purchase Order. It is stated that even though amount was not released in time, the Plaintiff kept on supplying the material as it was a prestigious project, as per timeframe mentioned in the Purchase Order/ requirements of the defendant. It is stated that the afor
of his contentions about the maintainability of the Writ Petition. He also referred to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and Section 16 thereof for rate of interest along with the date from which such interest is payable. 6. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, however, relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions and also on Sections 17 and 18 of the MSMED Act for availability of effective remedy. 1 (2010) 11 SCC 186 W.P.No.17099 of 2023 4 (1) Svapn Constructions Vs. IDPL Employees Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., and others 2. (2) Miraj Marketing Corporation Vs. Vishaka Engineering and another3. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is a proprietary concern and has filed the Writ Petition in the name of the company which has entered into agreements with the 3rd respondent and is represented by its Sole Proprietor. Therefore, the objection of the 3rd respondent about the maintainability of the Writ Petition because it has been filed by the Sole Proprietor is not sustainable. 8. As regards the othe