abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Rabindra Kumar Mintri & Ors ... Respondents Present: For Appellants: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Ms. Honey Satpal, Ms. Vaishnavi Prakash, Ms. Ritika Prasad, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Nandini Choudha and Ms. Namrata Sarogi, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Noor Shergill, Mr. Rishabh Govila and Ms. Diksha Dadu, Advocates for SRA. Mr. Apoorv Agarwal and Ms. Akshita Singh, Advocate for RP. Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra and Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Advocate for R2. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 816 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2952 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Principal Bench I.A. No.2518/2021 in (IB)923(PB)/2018) IN THE MATTER OF: Yashveer Singh ... Appellant Versus Rabindra Kumar Mintri & Ors ... Respondents Present: For Appellants: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nipun Gautam, Ms. Udita Singh, Mr. Kshitij Wadhwa and Ms. Bani Brar, Advocates. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 795, 816 & 817 of 2024 1 For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Noor Shergill, Mr. Rishabh Govila and Ms. Diksha Daddu, Advocates for SRA. Mr. Apoorv Agarwal and Ms. Akshita Singh, Advocate for RP. Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra and Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Advocate for R2. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 817 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2954 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Principal Bench I.A. No.2518/2021 in (IB)923(PB)/2018) IN THE MATTER OF: Reena ... Appellant Versus Rabindra Kumar Mintri & Ors ... Respondents Present: For Appellants: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nipun Gautam, Ms. Udita Singh, Mr. Kshitij Wadhwa and Ms. Bani Brar, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Noor Shergill, Mr. Rishabh Govila and Ms. Diksha Daddu, Advocates for SRA. Mr. Apoorv Agarwal and Ms. Akshita Singh, Advocate for RP. Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra and Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Advocate for R2. JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These three Appeal(s) have been filed against the same order dated 05.03.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench in IA No.2518/2021, IA No.3615/2022 and IA Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 795, 816 & 817 of 2024 2 No.4172/2022, by which order, all the aforesaid IAs were disposed of and with respect to other IAs, the Adjudicating Authority directed the same to be listed on 30.04.2024. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2024, these Appeal(s) have been filed. 2. We may first notice the facts giving rise to these Appeal(s). Facts in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 795 of 2024 are noted first and facts in other two Appeal(s) shall be separately noticed: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 795 of 2024 (i) The Appellant claims to have paid consideration towards allotment of 50 flats in the Project of M/s Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd., i.e., 'Ridge Re
Gauhati High Court WP(C)/5962/2025 on 18 November, 2025 Page No. 1/27 GAHC010225652025 2025:GAUAS:15803 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT PETITION [CIVIL] NO. 5962/2025 Lokopriya Gopinath Bordoloi Regional Institute of Mental Health, Tezpur, an Autonomous Society under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, Represented by its Director, Tezpur, Assam, Pin 784001. ..................Petitioner VERSUS 1. M/s Green Alliance Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. [Through its Managing Director / Authorized Digitally signed by Representative], Office Add C326, 2nd Floor, Vikas Puri, New Delhi Ananta Konwar 110018. Corporate Office at G24, Date: 2025.11.20 Vardhman Chambers, Vikas Puri, New 18:06:34 +05'30' Delhi 110018. Page 1 of 27 Page No. 2/27 2. The Delhi International Arbitration Centre [DIAC], Represented by its Director / Secretary, Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court Campus, Shershah Road, New Delhi 110503. 3. Puneet Taneja, Sr. Advocate, Chamber 21, Lawyers Chamber, Delhi High Court, New Delhi 110003. 4. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Represented by the Hon'ble Chairperson, MSEF Council District [West] Plot No. 3, Shivaji Place, Raja Garden, New Delhi 11002. ...................Respondents BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY Advocates : Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Dutta, Advocate. Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.11.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment ? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? : Yes Page 2 of 27 Page No. 3/27 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, Lokopriya Gopinath Bardoloi Regional Institute of Mental Health [hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner Institute' or 'the Institute', in short, for easy reference] is a tertiary mental health care institute, which is fully funded by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. It is stated that the petitioner Institute, established in Tezpur, Assam, is dedicated to providing specialized mental health care, research and training to advance mental health services in the region. 2. For the purpose of outsourcing manpower services, the petitioner Institute entered into a Government eMarketplace [GeM] Contract vide Contract no. GEMC511687733020098 dated 05.11.2021 with the respondent no. 1, M/s Green Alliance Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. The GeM Contract was awarded to the respondent no. 1 after a tender process wherein the respondent no. 1 submitted Bid no. GEM/2021/B/1503975 dated 08.09.2021. The GeM Contract was effective from 08.11.2021 to 07.11.2022 and the Contract value was Rs. 1,30,87,348.56/. 3. As per the terms and conditions of the GeM Contract, the respondent no. 1 was mandatorily required to comply with the provisions of the relevant labour
Lower Parel (W ), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. road, Mumbai400 013 Mumbai400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी ले खा सुं . / PAN No. AAACN1335Q आयकर अपील सुं . / ITA No. 1724/Mum/2016 ( यनर्ाा र ण वर्ा / Assessment Year 201112) The Asst. Commissioner of Star India Private Limited Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Star House, Urmi Estate, 95 Room No. 467, 4 t h floor, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. road, Lower Parel (W ), Mumbai400 020 Mumbai400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant by : S/shri Porus Kaka & Divesh Chawla, ARs प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent by : S/shri Lalit Krishan Singh Dehiya & Manish Kumar Singh, DRs सन ु वाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 03.05.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement : 01.08.2019 2|Page I T A N o . 1 0 4 8 / Mu m / 2 0 1 7 ITAs No. 1724 & 1901/Mum/2016 आदे श / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: These appeals are arising out of the different orders of Dispute Resolution Panel2, Mumbai [in short 'DRP'], in objection Nos. 142, 284 vide direction dated 29.11.2016, 14.12.2015. The Assessments were framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle16(1), Mumbai (in short 'ACIT/AO') for the assessment years 201112 & 201213 vide order of different date 31.01.2017, 29.01.2016, under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter 'the Act). 2. The first issue raised by the assessee in AY 201112 in IT(TP)A No. 1901/Mum/2016 is as regards to AO mechanically seeking approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax (in short 'the CIT') and the CIT erred in mechanically granting approval to the AO for referring the case to the TPO merely on the fact that the transaction value exceeded INR 15 Crores to the Instruction issued by Central Board of Direct Tax. For this assessee raised Ground No.1. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel has pointed out that in view of the submissions on other grounds namely, comparables, it would not be necessary to argue on this ground. Despite the same, the Id. DR has preferred written submissions. But this issue is more of academic in nature, hence we leave it as it is and do not adjudicate. 3. The second issue raised by the assessee in AY 201112 in IT(TP)A No. 1901/Mum/2016 is as regards to international transactions of 3|Page I T A N o . 1 0 4 8 / Mu m / 2 0 1 7 ITAs No. 1724 & 1901/Mum/2016 provision of support services for distribution of television channels and in relation to international transactions of provision of support services. The assessee has also raised the issue in relation to international transactions captured under the broadcasting segment for franchise channels. For this interconnected issue, the assessee had raised the following Ground Nos. 2 : "Ground number 2 have erred in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis undertaken, including comparable companies identified by the Appellant and considering certain other companies as compa
Circle1, Ltd, NBCC Plaza Pusph Vihar, 414, 4th Floor, DLF TowerB, New Delhi Plot No. 10 & 11, DDA District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi PAN: AAACE5174C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 1708/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 201112) EXL Service.com (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT(LTU), 414, 4 Floor, DLF TowerB, Plot th Circle1, No. 10 & 11, DDA District NBCC Plaza Pusph Vihar, Centre, Jasola, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACE5174C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv Shri Abhishek Aggarwal, CA Shri Anshul Sachar, CA Shri Karan Jain, CA Revenue by: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 28/07/2020 Date of pronouncement 26/08/2020 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue for AY 201112 against the order passed by the ld DCIT, Circle1, LTU, New Delhi against the order passed on 20.01.2016 u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed in pursuance of direction of the ld DRP. Page | 1 2. ITA No. 1708/Del/2016 is filed by the assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 355309/ on imputing interest on outstanding receivable from associated enterprises as its separate international transaction and its determination of ALP raising following grounds: "Appeal against the order under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Incometax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated 20 January 2016 for the Assessment Year 201112 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. AO") 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") is bad in law. 2. The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has inadvertently omitted to adjudicate on the specific ground raised by the Appellant during DRP proceedings in respect of advances available with the Appellant from the Associated Enterprise ("AE") and that pursuant to the said advances, no adjustment on account of outstanding receivables is warranted. The Appellant has filed a rectification application with the Hon'ble DRP requesting adjudication on the same, which is pending. 3. The Ld. DRP erred in confirming the Ld. AO/ Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer's ("Ld. TPO") approach of enhancing the income of the Appellant by Rs. 355,309 holding that the alleged international transactions pertaining to interest on outstanding receivables do not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act. In doing so, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO has grossly erred in: 3.1 recharacterizing the outstanding period as short term loans advances related party receivable from overseas AEs beyond 90 days period to the AEs; 3.2 disregarding the business/ commercial arrangement by not appreciating the fact that unlike a loan or borrowing, outstanding receivable is not an independent transaction which can be viewed on standalone basis and needs to be examined with the commercial transaction as a result of which the debit balance has
reported in (2011) 3 SCC 404 and in the case of Northern Coalfields Limited Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited and another reported in (2016) 8 SCC 685? 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are briefly indicated hereinafter: Appellant, a Government of India undertaking, engaged in works contract and duly registered before Service Tax Department under the category of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' entered into a contract with Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL) on 25th February, 2005 for construction of civil, structural and architectural work at Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, DVC, Jharkhand. As per the work order, materials were required to be provided by the appellant, National Buildings Construction Corporation at its own cost with the 2 exception that cement and steel were supplied by BHEL. Under Government Notification no. 15/2004ST dated 10th September, 2004, exemption was granted in the matter of levy of service tax on 67% of 'Gross Amount Charged' for construction services. By a clarification Notification no. 04/2005ST dated 1st March, 2005, it was indicated that 'Gross Amount Charged' shall include the value of goods or services or materials supplied or provided or used by the provider. Later, a consolidated Notification no. 1/2006ST was issued on 1st March, 2006. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Jamshedpur initiated an enquiry which led to issuance of showcause notice dated 16th October, 2008 upon the appellant asking him as to why the benefit of Exemption Notification dated 10th September, 2004 and 1st March, 2006 should not be disallowed and service tax for the period 200506 to 200708 be not raised to Rs. 4,17,74,199/. Appellant submitted its reply on 16th February, 2009. The order in original confirming the demand was passed on 24th February, 2010, rejecting the reply. 3. Being aggrieved by the order in original, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned CESTAT, Kolkata along with stay petition. Meanwhile, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited reported in (2010) 13 SCC 42, by order dated 6th April, 2010, the Division Bench of the Apex Court referred the matter relating to working of committee of disputes constituted earlier by an order passed by a Bench of Three Judges of the Apex Court i
Page no.1 of 10 2 cheque bearing no. 558370 dated 15.07.2014 for Rs. 2,00,000/, drawn on ICICI Bank, Branch Green Park, New Delhi which on presentation got dishonoured with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer" vide memo dated 18.07.2014. Thereafter, on failure of accused to pay the cheque amount, a legal demand notice dated 30.07.2014 through Regd. AD & courier to the accused which was deemed to be duly served upon the accused. Despite that payment of the cheque in question was not made by the accused within the stipulated time of 15 days. Hence, the instant complaint. 2. In the presummoning evidence, affidavit by way of evidence Ex.CW1/X was filed by the complainant. In his affidavit of evidence Ex. CW1/P, the complainant reiterated all the averments made in his complaint and relied on documents i.e. cheque in question Ex. CW1/A, its return memo Ex. CW1/B, office copy of legal notice Ex. CW1/C, postal & courier receipt Ex. CW1/D and Ex. CW1/E and the complaint is Ex. CW1/F. After closure of presummoning evidence, since sufficient material was found against the accused, summoning order u/s 204 CrPC was passed against the accused vide order dated 10.09.2014. 3. Accused appeared pursuant to issuance of summons and notice U/s 251 CrPC was served upon the accused vide order dated 06.06.2016 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused stated that she has no liability towards the complainant. She had not issued the cheque in question to the complainant but the same was issued to one M/s Kareena Fincap and Director of the said M/s Kareena Fincap with collusion to the complainant Vinod Kumar Khullar Vs. Preeti (Prop.) CC No. 463031/2016 Page no.2 of 10 3 presented the cheque in question to her bank for his wrong fill gain. Accused further stated that she did not receive the legal notice of demand and she has no legal liability to pay the cheque amount to the complainant. 4. Thereafter, the accused has filed an application u/s 145(2) N.I. Act which was allowed vide order dated 27.08.2016 and accused was given opportunity to cross examine the complainant and his witnesses. 5. Complainant examined himself as CW1 for the purpose of post summoning evidence. He was duly cross examined by Sh. Prakash Chandra, Ld. Counsel for the accused. No other complainant witness was produced by the complainant. Thereafter, on separate statement of complainant, CE was closed vide order dated 24.12.2016. 6. Thereafter, the plea of the accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr
Delhi High Court Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Somnath Buildtech Pvt. Ltd on 13 October, 2022 $~16 * + ITA 494/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue with Ms. Easha Kadian, Advocate. versus SOMNATH BUILDTECH PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kapil Goel, Advocate through Videoconferencing. % Date of Decision: 13th October, 2022 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA JUDGMENT MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL): 1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ('the Act') for setting aside the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No.2940/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 200910. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant, Revenue, states that the ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,50,38,586/ made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') in the hands of Assessee as a capital expense. He states that ITAT has erred in upholding the Assessee's reliance on Accounting Standard (AS7) and the Guidance Note issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), as the Assessee is admittedly a "developer" and not a "contractor", sums received as advances by it were not under a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS ITA 494/2018 Page 1 of 11 Signing Date:03.11.2022 11:28:41 "construction contract" and the Assessee was not following the 'Percentage of Completion Method' ('POCM'). He states that the ITAT itself made the selfcontradictory finding that the respondent was following the "completed contract method" ('CCM'). Therefore, the said expenses being capital in nature should have been disallowed in accordance with provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act. He states that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the expenses incurred by the Assessee were not intended to earn revenue during the subject AY and were spent for an 'enduring benefit' of the real estate project over a significant period of time, consisting of a number of AYs till the completion and sale of the project. 3. He states that the ITAT fell in error in holding that the amount expended by the Assessee towards 'advertisement expenses' and 'business promotion expenses' are related to the 'general administrative cost' of the Respondent. He states that ITAT erred in holding that the amount expended by the Assessee towards 'brokerage and commission' was incurred for the purpose of sale of the project, whereas admittedly the project was ongoing and unsold in this AY and the Assessee was following the CCM method which necessitates that the additions by the AO should be capitalised till the completion of the relevant project in a later AY. He further states that the ITAT erred in holding that the amount expended by the Assessee towards 'software development charge' has been incurred for the purpose of day to day operations of the Respondent as the ITAT failed to appreciate that the said expense was
1.Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Coimbatore Region, District Industries Centre / Zonal Office, No.2, Raja St., Coimbatore – 641 049. Rep. by its General Manager. 2.M/s.Unicon Engineers, No.513A/6, Bharathi Road, Chinnavedampatty, Coimbatore – 641 049, Rep. by Managing Partner, P.Ponram. ... Respondents ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 1 of 25 W.P.No.7633 of 2022 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in Case No.M & SEFC / CBER / 11/ 2016 dated 04.06.2016 and the consequential order in R.C.No.436/D3/2014 dated 25.10.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to return the amount withdrawn till date with interest. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar For R1 : Mr.U.Bharanidharan, Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.B.Manoharan ORDER The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying to quash the impugned order dated 04.06.2016 in Case No.M & SEFC / CBER / 11 / 2016 and the consequential impugned order dated 25.10.2016 in R.C.No.436/D3/2014 and consequently, to direct the second respondent to return the amount withdrawn till date with interest. 2. The petitioner had floated a Tender Notice dated 27.01.2010 for Design, Supply, Erection and Commissioning of 2 Nos. of Electrostatic ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 2 of 25 W.P.No.7633 of 2022 Precipitator (ESP) for Clinker Coolers at Ariyalur Cement Unit on turn key basis under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Act, 1998 and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000. The second respondent was declared as the successful bider. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a work order to the second respondent on 16.04.2010. 3. It appears that the work carried out by the second respondent was not to the satisfaction of the petitioner and therefore payments were not fully settled by the petitioner to the second respondent. Under these circumstances, the second respondent approached the first respondent by filing application under the provisions of the Mirco, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The first respondent, taking cognizance of the application filed by the second respondent, disposed the same vide impugned order dated 04.06.2016 in Case No. M &
Delhi High Court Vikas Malu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 16 February, 2024 $~ * % Reserved on: January 24, 2024 Decided on: February 16, 2024 + CRL.M.C. 6099/2023 & CRL.M.A. 22926/2023 (stay) DR HARSHITA MALU & ANOTHER ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Suri, Mr. Saud Khan, Mr. Tushan Rawal, Mr. Shivaz Berry and Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Advocates. V STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Kunal Mittal, Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Rishika, Advocates for State along with Insp. Manjusha, P.S. R.K. Puram. Mr. Kumud Shekhar and Mr. Murari Singh, Advocates for R2. + CRL.M.C. 6100/2023 & CRL.M.A. 22928/2023 (stay) VINEET MALU ..... Petitioner Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:19.02.2024 CRL.M.C. 6099/2023 & connected matters Page 1 11:45:33 Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Suri, Mr. Saud Khan, Mr. Tushan Rawal, Mr. Shivaz Berry and Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Advocates. V STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Kunal Mittal, Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Rishika, Advocates for State. Mr. Kumud Shekhar and Mr. Murari Singh, Advocates for R2. + CRL.M.C. 6101/2023 & CRL.M.A. 22930/2023 (stay) VIKAS MALU ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Suri, Mr. SaudKhan, Mr. Tushan Rawal, Mr. Shivaz Berry and Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Advocates. V STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER