abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
1. Chaitanya Arora, ) Individual, Indian Inhabitant ) Having address at H19/81, Top Floor, ) Rohini Sector7, North West Delhi, ) Delhi110085. ) 2. Chaitanya Enterprises ) Having address at H19/81, Top Floor, ) Rohini Sector7, North West Delhi, ) Delhi110085. ) 3. Sonu Shah ) Being the sole proprietor of ) Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on 17/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on 18/10/2025 00:27:15 ::: 2/53 iaL1827825.doc Sonu Enterprises, ) Ground Floor, Kh. No.957, ) Village Kirari Suleman Nagar, ) Landmark Near Chopal, ) New Delhi India 110086 ) WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5889 OF 2025 Mr. Janak Dwarkadas a/w Namrata Vinod, Rashmin Khandekar, Pooja Jain, Bhavi Gada. Samaruddhi Naik, Suhail Shariff, Sherin Baby and Mohammad Omar Hashmi for Plaintiff. Mr.Hiren Kamod a/w Vaibhav Keni, Neha Iyer, Prem Khullar, Vatsala Batra, Gaurav Gogia, Anees Patel, Aviral Srivastava, Rajat A. i/b Legasis Partners for Defendant. Mr. Deepak Bhalerao, Second Assistant to Court Receiver, present. CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. RESERVED ON: 30TH SEPTEMBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 15TH OCTOBER 2025 JUDGMENT: 1. This Court had, on 30th June, 2025, passed an ex parte ad interim Order inter alia restraining the Defendants from using the trade mark "DOCTOR HEALTH SUPER SOFT/ DOCTOR SUPER SOFT/ DOCTOR EXTRA SOFT" in relation to the sale of footwear. 2. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, on being served with the ex parte order have filed an Affidavit seeking to have the ex parte ad interim Order vacated under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on 17/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on 18/10/2025 00:27:15 ::: 3/53 iaL1827825.doc (CPC), on the ground that the Plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands since the Plaintiff had obtained the ex parte order by deliberately suppressing material facts and documents from this Court. Submissions of Mr. Kamod on behalf of the Defendants 3. Mr. Kamod, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff had suppressed the three most material facts from this Court and had on that basis not only created a false sense of urgency but also obtained relief to which the Plaintiff was not entitled. He then pointed out that the Plaintiff had suppressed the fact that (I) the Plaintiff's trade mark registration
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Limited, Through Managing Director Having Its Registered Office At Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, CScheme, Jaipur302005 (Rajasthan). 3. MSTC Limited, Through Its ChairmanCumManaging Director Having Its Branch Office At Room No.114, First Floor, BSNL Building, Lalkothi, Behind Nagar Nigam, Jaipur302015 (Rajasthan). Respondents Connected With S.B. Amar Prem And Sons, Through Its Sole Proprietor Mohit Sarin Having Its Registered Office At 334, Govindam Commercial Hub, (Downloaded on 13/01/2022 at 09:48:14 PM) (2 of 58) [CW91/2022] Old Rto Road, Bhilwara, Rajasthan 311001 Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Limited, Through Managing Director Having Its Registered Office At Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, CScheme, Jaipur 302005 (Rajasthan) 3. Mstc Limited, Through Its ChairmanCumManaging Director Having Its Branch Office At Room No. 114, First Floor, Bsnl Building, Lalkothi, Behind Nagar Nigam, Jaipur 302015 (Rajasthan) Respondents S.B. Shri Mahipal Transport Company, Through Proprietor Vijendra Singh Son Of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of 61, Champa Nagar, Beawar 305901 (Rajasthan) Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Limited, Through Chairman Cum Chief Secretary Of The State Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Limited, 4 Meera Marg, Udaipur. 4. Group General Manager (Lignite), RSMM Limited, SBU And PC Lignite, Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 5. MSTC Limited (Govt Of India Enterprises), Through Manager, Room No. 114, First Floor, Bsnl Building, Lal Khoti Behind Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, Pin 302015 Respondents (Downloaded on 13/01/2022 at 09:48:14 PM) (3 of 58) [CW91/2022] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vipul Sharda Adv., & Mr. Deepak Bishnoi Adv. & Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa Adv., through VC. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhi, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma Adv., through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 12/01/2022 1. These writ petitions since involve common questions, hence with consent of the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by the present order. 2. For adjudication of the questions raised for consi
1.Mrs.Megha Goswami 2.Mr.Shyam Goswami 3.Mr.Deepak Goswami 4.Vallabh Soft Systems Pvt. Ltd., No.16, Ekambareswarar Koil Street, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. 5.KT Arvind ...Defendants Prayer: This suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC r/w. Order IV Rule 1 O.S.Rules r/w. Sections 55, 62 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 for the following reliefs: (a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, successors in business, assigns, representatives or any other person of entity claiming through or under them from in any http://www.judis.nic.in 1/38 C.S.No.760 of 2006 manner infringing the plaintiff's registered copyright in the software U CAMPUS XL 1.0 registered under No.SW1727/2005 by using, marketing, installing, reproducing or in any other manner dealing with the said software or by any other means whatsoever; (b) An order of mandatory injunction directing the defendants, their men, agents, successors in business, assigns, representatives or any other person or entity claiming through or under them, not to hold themselves as representatives, agents, distributors of the software U CAMPUS XL 1.0 or in any manner connected with the plaintiff; (c) An order directing the 5th defendant to return the source code and security key and other materials relating to the software U CAMPUS XL 1.0 and not to use the said source code, security key or project himself as agent, representative, employee or in any manner connected with the plaintiff; (d) direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/ as liquidated damages to the plaintiff; (e) direct the defendants to return the Compact Disks and instruction manuals of the software U CAMPUS XL 1.0 handed over to the defendants by the plaintiff without making or retaining any copy, alteration, reproduction or duplicate of the same; (f) pay the plaintiff costs of the suit. For Plaintiff : Mr.Arun C.Mohan For Defendants – 1 to 4 : Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil Defendant – 5 : Set ex parte by order dated 26.03.2013 http://www.judis.nic.in 2/38 C.S.No.760 of 2006 JUDGMENT 1.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that their Company was incorporated with a vision of promoting and aiding the development of education, especially, higher education in India. The plaintiff Company has developed the software, “U CAMPUS XL 1.0” which has been used by educational Institutions all over India and the same was registered under the Copyrights Act, 1957 under No.SW 1727/2005 dated 15.03.2005. The author of the said software are Mr.D.Victor, Dr.R.Rukmani and Dr.Indhrani Sridharan. The said copyright is valid for
2 C.C.27308/2019 Accused : Sri Krishna Murthy.A S/o Late Poojari Agadoorappa Aged about 55 years R/at No.1966/1, 7th Main, 4th Cross, Hampinagar, Vijayanagar, Bangalore 560104. Another address: Sri. Krishna Murthy.A Senior Vehicle Inspector RTO Office, KGF, Kolar District. { By Sri.H.V.Subramanya Advocate } Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Accused is acquitted Date of Order : 01.08.2024. 3 C.C.27308/2019 JUDGMENT The present complaint is filed under section 200 of Cr.P.C. R/w.2 (d) of code of criminal procedure against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act"). 2. The brief facts which leads the complainant to file the present complaint are summarized as under; It is stated that the complainant and accused are well known to each other for the past 3 years. In order to meet out his financial commitments, on 05.01.2019 the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs by way of cash from the complainant and had assured to repay the same within 6 months together with interest @ 1.5% per month. It is further stated that after the expiry of 6 months period, to clear the debt of the complainant the accused has issued cheque bearing No.370870 dated 25.07.2019 for 4 C.C.27308/2019 Rs.3,00,000/ drawn on Corporation Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bangalore and assured that he will keep sufficient funds in his account. On 25.07.2019 when the complainant has presented the said cheque with his banker, it has returned unpaid due to 'Insufficient Funds' in the account of the drawer as per return memo dated 29.07.2019. Thereafter, the complainant got issued demand notice to the accused by RPAD on 08.08.2019 to his residential and office addresses. But, both the notices have returned as 'Intimation Delivered' and 'Always Absent'. On all these assertions the complainant has sought to punish the accused U/Sec.138 of NI Act and to pass appropriate order as it deems fit and proper. 3. On presentation of complaint, the sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded and got marked Ex.P1 to P13. Having made out primafacie case, cognizance for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act has been taken and ordered 5 C.C.27308/2019 to issue process against the accused by registering the complaint in Register No.III. 4. As per the summons issued by this court, the accused has put his appearance before this court through his advocate and filed bail applications along with application U/Sec.145 of NI Act. The accused has been enlarged on bail and the substance of accusation has also recorded. As per the provisions of Sec.145 of NI Act the sworn statement of complainant has been treated as affidavit evidence and also the accused has been accorded permission to crossexamine PW.1. The Learned Defense Counsel has crossexamined PW.1 and after completing the evidence of complainant, the statement of accused U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded and explained to him the incriminating evidence, the accused has denied the same in toto and gave explanation stating that the
PATIL Date: 2024.10.08 14:50:52 +0530 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. ..... Respondents Shri Pranjit Bhattacharya a/w. Shri Avdhoot Prabhu i/b. Lex Services for the petitioners Shri Pankaj Sawant, Senior Advocate a/w. Rutu Pawar i/b. Pragnya Legal for respondent No.1 BPCL AMIT BORKAR, J. RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 1, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 8, 2024 JUDGMENT (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. Heard Shri Pranjit Bhattacharya, learned Counsel representing the petitioners and Shri Pankaj Sawant, learned Senior Advocate along with Ms. Rutu Pawar representing the respondent No.1 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the BPCL) and perused the records available before us on this petition. Basavraj Page | 1 ::: Uploaded on 08/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on 09/10/2024 01:10:02 ::: 3453.24wp.docx (A) Challenge: 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the validity of an order dated 8 th December 2023 passed by respondent No.1 whereby respondent No.1 decided to ban business dealings with the petitioner and its allied agencies and further debarred the petitioner from entering into the contracts with respondent No.1 for a period of one year (period of holiday listing). Further prayer made in the writ petition is that by an appropriate writ or direction, respondent No.1 may be restrained from taking any action/coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 21 st July 2023 and the impugned order of debarring dated 8th December 2023. (B) Brief facts : 3. Before adverting to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties in support and opposition of the writ petition, it is essential to note certain facts, which are as under. 4. Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and is also an MSME industry Basavraj Page | 2 ::: Uploaded on 08/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on 09/10/2024 01:10:02 ::: 3453.24wp.docx dealing in Polyethylene pipes having its manufacturing unit at Guwahati. Petitioner No. 2 has described himself as one of the partners of petitioner No. 1. 5. Respondent No.1 issued notice inviting tender (tender document) for procurement of Polyethylene (MDPE) pipe for BPCL/BGRL CGD Projects. The bid due date for the said tender was 16th August 2022 at 15:00 hours. The document specifically provided that the policy to Purchase Preference linked with Local Content (hereinafter referred to as the "PPLC") circulated by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, vide it's circular dated 23 rd February 2022 shall be applicable to the subject tender. The relevant clause regarding applicability of PPLC policy as provided for in the tender document, is quoted hereunder: "PPLC (revised) policy as per Circular from MOPNG ref No.FP 20013/2/2017FPPNGPart (1) (E36682) dated 23.02.2022 shall be applicable for this Domestic Tender. Only Class 1 and Class 2 local suppliers, as defined in PPLC order, shall be eligible to bid for this tender. Purchase preference shall be applicable to Manufacturers classified as Class 1 Local Suppliers." 6. Thus, according to the aforequoted clause, it was
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 8,80,500/. Date of institution of suit : 20.03.2023 First Date before this court : 02.04.2023 Date of hearing of final argument : 07.08.2024 Date of Judgment : 14.08.2024 Appearance(s) :Shri Varun Gupta, and Mr. Praveen Kumar Mishra , Advocates Ld. Counsels for plaintiff. Shri Gaurav Singh Advocate , Ld. Counsel for the defendant. JUDGMENT (A) PRELUDE: 1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon plaintiff's suit for Recovery of Rs.8,80,500/ alongwith interest @ 18% per annum pendentlite and future from the date of filing of suit till its realisation. The plaintiff has also prayed for costs of the suit. (B) PLAINTIFF'S CASE 2. Eschewing prolix reference to the pleadings crystallizing the same the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that: 2.1) It is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and registered with Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) having its registered office at 7483, Bansal Apartment, Mill Marg, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi. The plaintiff company is engaged in the business of providing logistics and transportation services. The present suit has been filed by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, its Legal & Administration Manager, who has been duly authorized to file, sign, and verify the plaint and do all the needful in the matter vide Board MUKESH Digitally by MUKESH signed KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2024.08.16 GUPTA 16:29:12 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.499/2023 M/s Kiran Roadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Maxmech Equipments Pvt. Ltd Page no. 2 of 37 Resolution dated 09.03.2023. 2.2) The defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and providing services of Vertical shaft, Concrete battling Plant, Max Chasis, Sets Bins, collecting belt etc. having its registered office at 203, Mondeal Heights, Nr. Panchratna Party Plot, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad, Gujarat380051 also registered under MSME. In the year 2018, the defendant through its directors approached the plaintiff company for Transportation/Logistic Services for transportation of parts of conveyors from manufacturing units to various sites all over India to which the plaintiff agreed and accordingly jobs were assigned
"Registered A.D. Apparel Export Promotion Council (Sponsored by Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India) AEPC/REG/QA/D/DC726(20)036 JANUARY 15, 1992 M/s. Mac Exports (India) DDA Shopping Centre, Gitanjali, New Delhi110017. Sub.: SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER PARA 298 OF THE HAND BOOK OF IMPORT EXPORT PROCEDURES 199093. Dear Sir, While reconciling the figures of AEPC with the details received from US authorities it has been noticed that the following Visa was used for export of Rayon Blouses in catg. 641. However, as per our record the said Visa had been issued to you with the details indicated below: S. Visa No. Cat/Qty as Cat/Qty as No. per AEPC Per US record record 1. 506880 639/1200 pcs. 641/1980 pcs. It is thus evident that you had unauthorisedly exported the garments to USA on the basis of bogus/forged/tampered Visa fraudulently. The above action on your part attracts the provisions of para 298 (1)(b) of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures 199093. Now, therefore, you are called upon by the notice issued under para 298 (1)(b) of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures 199093 to Show Cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why action should not be taken against you/your director/partner under para 298(1)(b) of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures 199093 to deregister your firm. Your reply to this Show Cause Notice alongwith corroborative evidence in support to your explanation should reach the undersigned within the stipulated period failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defense and the matter will be decided ex parte on merits and on the basis of information and evidence on record without any further reference to you. If you want to be heard in person also to explain your case, you may say so in your reply to this Show Cause Notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice. This Show Cause Notice is without prejudice to any action that may be taken against you/your director/partner under any law and regulation in force. Sd/ (D.K. NAIR) Director (QP") 4. Subsequent notice of hearing dated 3rd August, 1992 was also sent to the petitioner by respondent No. 2. The petitioner was also asked to surrender the original Visa vide communication dated 22
(1) Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary World Trade Centre, Centre No. 1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005. (2) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Through its ChairmancumManaging Director 4th Floor, Prakashgadh, Plot No. G9 Anand Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. ...Respondent(s) Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Kapur Mr. Vishrov Mukerjee Mr. Yashaswi Kant Ms. Catherine Ranji Ayallore Ms. Ameya Vikram Mishra Ms. Raveena Dhamija Mr. Girik Bhalla Page 1 of 37 Judgement in Appeal No. 41 of 2019 Mr. Janmali Gopal Rao Manikala Mr. Pratyush Singh Ms. Juhi Senguttuvan Mr. Rohit Venkat Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. G. Umapathy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samir Malik Ms. Nikita Choukse Mr. Rahul Sinha Mr. Sahil Sood Mr. Ravi Prakash Ms. Pavitra Balakrishna Mr. Aditya Singh for R2 JUDGEMENT PER HON'BLE MR. SANDESH KUMAR SHARMA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1) The captioned Appeal has been filed by M/s. Rattan India Power Limited (formerly known as Indiabulls Power Limited) (hereinafter referred as "Appellant") assailing the Order dated 23.10.2018 ("Impugned Order") passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission ("State Commission" or "MERC") whereby the Appellant was denied compensation for the penalty imposed by the fuel company for nonprocurement of minimum quantity of fuel. 2) The Appellant owns and operates a Thermal Power Plant and supplies electricity to MSEDCL under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) signed with MSEDCL. 3) The MERC i.e. 1st Respondent is the State Electricity Regulatory Commission constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 and vested with the power Page 2 of 37 Judgement in Appeal No. 41 of 2019 to adjudicate the dispute in hand. 4) The 2nd Respondent i.e. MSEDCL is the Distribution Company having been granted the Distribution Licence by the MERC for the State of Maharashtra. 5) The Appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the MERC denying compensation for the penalty imposed on it for lifting minimum quantum of coal under the provisions of the PPA citing that such a lower lifting is on account of low despatch schedule or no schedule given by the MSEDCL under the relevant regulations, the Appellant also submitted that it is the duty of the Distribution Company to provide the requisite schedule to the Generating Company and its failure has resulted into nonprocurement of coal to the requisite quantity as the power plant could not generate to the required quantum. 6) The Commission vide the Impugned Order has analysed and decided as under : "Commission's Analysis and Rulings: 9. "RIPL filed this Petition under Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 seeking compensation for penalty imposed by SECL on account of nonprocurement of minimum quantity of fuel by RIPL under the FSA in accordance with Clause 4.5 of Schedule 4 of the PPA between RIPL and MSEDCL along with its carr
Bombay High Court Anmolsingh Swarnsingh Jabbal vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 March, 2014 1 cra276.11 AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2011 1] Anmolsingh Swarnsingh Jabbal ...Appellant [Original Accused] VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ig ..... Shri Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate i/b Shri S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the appellant Shri S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent/State ..... CORAM : S.S.SHINDE AND V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 27.2.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT : 21.3.2014 J U D G M ENT : (Per V.M.Deshpande, J.) 1] Being dissatisfied and feeling aggrieved by the recording of find of guilt, and consequently imposing punishment for life by the learned ::: Downloaded on 29/03/2014 18:58:50 ::: 2 cra276.11 Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar, dated 15.4.2011 in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2010, the appellant has presented the appeal questioning his sentence, on account of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2] The factual matrix, giving rise to the present appeal, can succinctly be narrated as under : Pandurang Kharate (PW 1), an agriculturist and resident of Kawatha, was returning to his house along with one Paraji on 29.7.2009 at 7.30 a.m. from their field. That time, they saw dead body of a girl by the side of field of one Raosaheb Pande. The dead body was lying in shrubs. They noticed that the deceased was having Jeans pant and Tshirt on her person. They informed the said fact to police patil Tukaram Kharate. Police Patil Tukaram Kharate (PW 2), on receipt of the information from Pandurang Kharate immediately rushed to the spot and found that the ::: Downloaded on 29/03/2014 18:58:50 ::: 3 cra276.11 body was lying there. He informed the said fact to the police station officer, Basmath. 3] Manik Perke (PW 36) was discharging his duties as police station officer, police station, Basmath. After getting the information from police patil of village Kawatha, the said information was conveyed to Manik Perke (PW 36) by police Head Constable Argade. On receipt of the information about the dead body being found in the field, he immediately rushed to the spot. A photographer was also taken by him. He saw dead body of young girl lying in shrubs on Kavatha to Kurunda road. He, therefore, directed photographer to take the photographs of that lady. He also called two panchas and in their presence an inquest panchanama was prepared. Same is at Exh.44. He then sent the dead body for postmortem along with the requisition (Exh.120). He also sent another requisition to the Medical Officer for preserving samples of blood and samples of body required for DNA test. The said requisition is at Exh.121. ::: Downloaded on 29/03/2014 18:58:50 :::