abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Andhra Pradesh High Court Amravati Lakshmi Venkateswara Constructions vs The Chairman And Perment Lok Adalat For ... on 26 September, 2025 1 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.4063 of 2025 *** W.P.No.4063 of 2025 Between: 1. LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA CONSTRUCTIONS, KURNOOL REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS K. NAGENDRUDU, S/O K.VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF H.NO. 3/60 VENKATAPURAM VILLAGE, KOMAROLU POST, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. KAMSALI SOMAIAH ACHARI,, S/O LATE VENKATESWARAIAH ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 14/24318, SIVARAMAKRISHNA REDDY NAGAR, VELDHURTHY MANDAL, KURNOOL. ... Petitioners And $ 1.THE CHAIRMAN AND PERMENT LOK ADALAT FOR PUBLIC SERVICES, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. NADIMPALLI NAGARAJU, S/O SURYA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.39, LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA GROUP HOUSING LAYOUT, DINNEDEVARAPADU VILLAGE, B.CAMP POST, KURNOOL STRICT. 3. NADIMPALLI SHARADA, W/O NADIMPALLI NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.39, LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA GROUP HOUSING LAYOUT, DINNEDEVARAPADU VILLAGE, B.CAMP POST, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ... Respondents 2 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.4063 of 2025 Date of Judgment pronounced on : 26092025 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No May be allowed to see the judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals: 3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No Of the Judgment? 3 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.4063 of 2025 * * HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR + W.P.No.4063 of 2025 % Dated: 24092025 1. LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA CONSTRUCTIONS, KURNOOL REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS K. NAGENDRUDU, S/O K.VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF H.NO. 3/60 VENKATAPURAM VILLAGE, KOMAROLU POST, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. KAMSALI SOMAIAH ACHARI,, S/O LATE VENKATESWARAIAH ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 14/24318, SIVARAMAKRISHNA REDDY NAGAR, VELDHURTHY MANDAL, KURNOOL. ... Petitioner AND $ 1.THE CHAIRMAN AND PERMENT LOK ADALAT FOR PUBLIC SERVICES, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. NADIMPALLI NAGARAJU, S/O SURYA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.39, LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA GROUP HOUSING LAYOUT, DINNEDEVARAPADU VILLAGE, B.CAMP POST, KURNOOL STRICT. 3. NADIMPALLI SHARADA, W/O NADIMPALLI NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.39, LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA GROUP HOUSING LAYOUT, DINNEDEVARAPADU VILLAGE, B.CAMP POST, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.4063 of 2025 ... Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner : T. Diwakar Reddy ^Counsel for Respondents : Sri Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Smt. S. Ayesha Azma for R2 and 3 <GIST : >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 499 2 2024:PHHC:128984 3 (2020) ibclaw.in.116 HC 4 1958 AIR 560 5 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.4063 of 2025 APHC010070962025 AT AMARAVATI [3529] (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Delhi High Court Vandna Rani vs Indiamart Intermesh Ltd on 30 August, 2024 $~44 * Date of decision: 30.08.2024 + O.M.P. 7/2024, I.A. 37811/2024 VANDNA RANI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Yadav, Adv. versus INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naman Joshi, Ms. Amber Tickoo, Ms. Seema Joshi, Advs. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH : JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 14.06.2024 to the extent whereby the learned arbitrator has held that the termination of the employment of the petitioner is in accordance with the appointment letter dated 08.06.2018. 2. The facts are that the petitioner was offered the position of Assistant ManagerClient Acquisition vide letter of appointment dated 08.06.2018 and was working as an employee of the respondent company on salary basis. 3. Subsequently, the respondent company terminated the employment of the petitioner vide letter dated 29.07.2021 in terms of Clause 8 of the appointment letter. Clause 8 of the appointment letter reads as under: "Termination During probation period, your services can be terminated, without notice and assigning any reason, if your services are not found satisfactory. After confirmation of your employment, notice of termination of employment will be 15 Digitally Signed O.M.P. 7/2024 Page 1 of 9 By:DEEPANSHU MALASI Signing Date:13.09.2024 20:17:36 days or 15 day's salary in lieu of notice from either party. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Company shall be entitled to terminate your employment without notice and compensation in any of the following events: i) if you are in the opinion of the Company, guilty of dishonesty, misconduct or negligence in performance of your duties. ii) if you have been found to have committed a serious breach or continual material breach of any of your duties or obligations; iii) if you are found to have made illegal monetary profit or received any gratuities or other rewards, in cash or in kind, out of any of the Company's affairs or any of its subsidiaries or related companies. You would also be liable to be removed from the services at any time without any notice and compensation, in case, if any information Furnished by you in connection with the above appointment is found incorrect at any stage or correct information is found suppressed." 4. Since there were disputes subsisting between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration on 28.03.2022 and thereafter, filed an application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The learned arbitrator was appointed by this court vide order dated 17.02.2023. The appointment letter contains the a
Andhra Pradesh High Court Amravati G. Kiranmai vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 January, 2025 1 *HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI +WRIT PETITION NO: 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023 +WP No.9996/2021 Between: #G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND $The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 24.01.2025 THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes ___________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO 2 * THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023 % 24.01.2025 +WP No.9996/2021 # Between: #G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND $The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ghanta Rama Rao Sri Ghanta Sridhar Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy Sri K. Raghuveer ! Counsel for Respondents: Advocate General Sri M. Vijay Kumar Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy Sri Venkata Rao Ms. Jyothirathna Anumolu Sri Surendra Rao Sri Srnivasa Rao Madiraju Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri Sri C. Srinivasa Baba 3 <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. MANU/SC/0776/1999 2. MANU/SC/0644/1987 3. MANU/SC/8149/2006 4. AIR 1968 SC 850 5. (1998) 2 SCC 523 6. (1982) 2 SSC 116 7. (2022)1 SCC 352 8. 1985 (Supp) SCC 218 9. 1975 (2) SCC 553 10. 1981 4 SCC 130 11. 1982 (2) SCC 116 12. 1985 (Supp) SCC 218 13. 1987 (4) SCC 566 14. 1998 (2) SCC 523 15. 2000(1) SCC 644 16 2006 (8) SCC 129 17 (1991) 2 SCC 295 18 (1967) SLR 753 19 AIR 1962 SC 1044 20 (2022) 1 SCC 352 4 APHC010181552021 AT AMARAVATI [3310] ((Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9996 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023 WP No.996 of 2021 Between: G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 5 1. GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Y.NAGI REDDY (APSPDCL) 2. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL 3. GP FOR ENERGY (AP) 4. V R REDDY KOVVURI 5. V V SATISH The Court made the following: COMMONORDER : As the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, and therefore, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 2. The WP Nos.9996, 11089 of 2021 are filed challenging the Memo of the 2nd respondent in Memo No. APCPDCL/CMD/DIR(TECH)/ GM(HR)/DGM/ PO(Adm)/ Asst./D.No.992/21, dated 17.03.2021 unsettling petitioners' settled seniority basing upon the seniority in the Cadre of Assistant Engineer instead of taking into consideration of the Seniority in the cadre of the Deputy Executive Engineer as the same is arbitrary and illegal. 3.
B.D. Kaushik ... Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3402 OF 2003 Supreme Court Bar Association ... Appellant Versus A.K. Manchanda ... Respondent J U D G M E N T J.M. Panchal, J. Since common issues for determination are involved in Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003 and Civil 2 Appeal No. 3402 of 2003, this Court proposes to dispose them of by this common judgment. 2. Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003 is filed by three appellants, i.e., (1) Supreme Court Bar Association (Registered), through its Honorary Secretary Mr. Ashok Arora, (2) Shri Ashok Arora, Honorary Secretary of Supreme Court Bar Association and (3) Ms. Sunita B. Rao, Coordinator, Implementation Committee, Supreme Court Bar Association (for short "SCBA"), Tilak Marg, New Delhi. It is directed against interim order dated April 5, 2003, passed by learned Civil Judge, Delhi below application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) filed in Civil Suit No. 101 of 2003. Civil Appeal No. 3402 of 2003 is filed by Supreme Court Bar Association through its Honorary Secretary against interim order dated April 5, 2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge below application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC, filed in Civil Suit No. 101 of 2003. By the common order, the appellants are restrained from implementing the 3 resolution dated February 18, 2003 amending Rule 18 of the Rules and Regulations of SCBA till the final disposal of both the suits. 3. The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003 is Shri B.D. Kaushik whereas the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 3402 of 2003 is Shri A.K. Manchanda. Both the respondents are the advocates practicing in Delhi. They are members of SCBA, Delhi High Court Bar Association, Delhi Bar Association, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, etc. The appellant No. 1, i.e., Supreme Court Bar Association is a Society registered on August 25, 1999 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and its Registration No. is 35478 of 1999. The Registered Office of the Association is in Supreme Court premises at New Delhi. The provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 empower a society to frame Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations. In exercise of those powers the Association has framed Memorandum of Association of the SCBA as also the Rules and Regulations. The aims and objectives of the Association are specified in 4 Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Association, which are as under: "3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The Aims and Objectives of the association are: i) To promote upholding of rule of law; ii) To encourage profession of law in India; iii) To promote and protect the privileges, interest and prestige of the association and to promote union and cooperation among the advocates practicing in the court and other associations and advocates; iv) To promote and maintain high standards of profession
Madras High Court Women'S Centre And Hospitals (P) Ltd vs Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 2 November, 2022 W.P. No. 6766 of 2022 DATED : 02.11.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 6766 of 2020 and W.M.P. No. 8048 of 2020 Women's Centre and Hospitals (P) Ltd., Rep.by its Authorised Officer, Mr. G.Ramesh Ram, 146B, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore – 600043. … Petitioner vs 1. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Thiruvika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai. 2. M/s. Ibuilding Automation (P) Ltd., Plot No. 144, (Door No. 26) 4th Street, Raghava Reddy Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600083. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the First Respondent in MSEFC/CR/43/2017, dated 12.12.2019 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. For Petitioner : Mrs. S.P.Arthi For Respondents : Mr. T.Arun Kumar, Additional Government Pleader (for R1) Mr. R.Anish Kumar (for R2) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/12 W.P. No. 6766 of 2022 ORDER Heard Mrs. S.P.Arthi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. T.Arun Kumar, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. R.Anish Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Second Respondent made a claim in Case No. MSEFC/CR/43/2017 before the First Respondent under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED Act' for short), claiming payment of Rs. 56,04,189/ from the Petitioner towards the value of goods supplied with interest calculated in terms of that Act, in which an order dated 12.12.2019 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to pay the sum of Rs. 56,04,189/ together with compounded interest with monthly rests at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in MSMED Act from the invoices dated from 03.02.2011 to 07.03.2012 till the date of settlement, which assailed in this Writ Petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/12 W.P. No. 6766 of 2022 3. In response to the contentions raised by Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, it has to only resort to filing of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the A & C Act' for short), to have it set aside as an arbitral award as held by this Court in the decision in M/s. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs Mictro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (Order dated 13.06.2022 in W.P. No. 8220 of 2017), Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that before commencement of arbitration, the prescribed procedure for conciliation had not been terminated in the manner provided in Section 76 of the A & C Act, which would vitiate the impugned order as having been passed without jurisdiction.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Appearance: MS MEGHA JANI WITH MR ARJUN JOSHI, for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED THRU CONCERNED POLICE STATION for the Respondent(s) No. 14 MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,12,13,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,33,34, 35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,5,6,7,8,9 Date : 01/09/2025 ORAL ORDER 1) The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so also inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") [section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gir Somnath at Veraval, below Exh:2978 in Special Atrocities Case No. 8 of 2018, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application of the petitioner filed seeking to make oral arguments on support of the written submissions in the captioned proceedings. 2) Heard Ms. Megha Jani assisted by Mr. Arjun Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for the respondent State. Though served, none appears for rest of the respondents. Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:19:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13487/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined 3) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with an assistance of learned APP, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith. 4) Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent State. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste and is engaged in traditional occupation of skinning of dead animals. The petitioner is a complainant in the FIR being C.R.No.127 of 2016 registered at Una Police Station against six accused persons; that on 11.07.2016, the petitioner was asked to lift dead cattle and while the petitioner along with his brothers were skinning a cow carcass, the accused persons entered the place located at t
Sh. K.K. Bajoria. 6. LALIT KRISHAN SINHA S/o Sh. J.P. Sinha R/o Mohalla Bhulanpur, PO Khairabad, Distt. Sitapur (U.P) (Expired on 30.08.2019) 7. LALIT VIRMANI S/o S.L. Virmani R/o B13, MDA Flats, Begum Bagh, Meerut (U.P.) (Discharged vide order 04.06.2016) 8. VIVEK GAUTAM S/o Sh. K.K. Sharma R/o Flat No. 64, Rashi Apartments, Sector 7, Dwarka, New Delhi. 9. SANJEEV SHROFF S/o Kamlesh Shroff R/o Flat No. 82, Building No. 2, Wing A, Kalptaru Estate, Andheri East, Mumbai. (Discharged vide order 04.06.2016) 10. YASH PAL NARANG S/o K.K. Narang R/o 6/86, Sector11, Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (U.P). (Expired on 07.09.2014) 11. HARBHAJAN SINGH S/o Late Sardar Balwant Singh R/o F9, Jangpura Extn. New Delhi. 12. RASHID JILANI S/o Late Syed Hamid Hussain Jilani. R/o 20, Rajdoot Marg, Chankaya Puri, New Delhi. (Expired on 04.01.2019) CC No. 2/2019 CBI Vs. M.K. Menon & Ors. Page No. 2 of 131 Date of Institution : 23.07.2002 Judgment reserved on : 11.02.2021 Date of Judgment : 10.03.2021 Memo of Appearance: Sh. A. K. Kushwaha, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI. Sh. Madhav Khurana & Sh. Ankit Bhatia, Advocates for A2, A4 & A5. Sh. Mudit Jain, Advocate for A3. Sh. G.K. Seth & Ms. Geetanjali Sharma, Advocates for A8. Sh. Pawan Narang, Advocate for A11. JUDGMENT PROSECUTION VERSION 1. The FIR in the present case was registered on 28.10.1999 on the basis of source information against Shri Rashid Jilani, the then Chairman and Managing Director of Punjab National Bank and Chairman of PNB CAPS Ltd., Shri M.K. Menon, the then Managing Director, PNB CAPS New Delhi, Shri K.K. Bajoria, Shri K.C. Aggarwal, Chairman and the then Director (Finance) respectively of M/s. Solarson Industries Ltd. (hereinafter mentioned as SIL) and M/s. Willard India Ltd. (hereinafter mentioned as WIL) u/sec. 120B r/w Section 420 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations that the accused
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Cybrer Tech Systems & Software Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax Cybertech Systems & Software Ltd ITA No 2781/Mum/2003 (AY 199798) ITA No 2782/Mum/2003 (AY 199889). ITA No 2863/Mum/2003 (AY 199900) ITA No 3670/Mum/2003 (AY 199798) ITA No 3671/Mum/2003 (AY 199889). ITA No 4482/Mum/2003 (AY 199900). IN THE INCOME INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI 'F 'F ' BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G E VEERABHADRAPPA, PRESIDENT PRESIDENT & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM ITA No 2781/Mum/2003 (AY 1997 199798) ITA No 2782/Mum/2003 (AY 1998 199889). 89). ITA No 2863/Mum/2003 (AY 1999 199900) Cybertech Systems & Software Ltd Vs The Commr of Income Tax Plot No.B65 J B Sawantg Marg 8(1), Mumbai Road No.21, Wagle Estate Thane 400 604 (Appellant ) (Respondent) ITA No 3670/Mum/2003 (AY 1997 199798) ITA No 3671/Mum/2003 (AY 1998 199889). 89). ITA No 4482/Mum/2003 (AY 1999 199900). The Commr of Income Tax Vs Cybertech Systems & Software Ltd 8(1), Mumbai Plot No.B65 J B Sawantg Marg Road No.21, Wagle Estate Thane 400 604 (Appellant ) (Respondent) PAN No. DC.CIR 5(2)/466 5(2)/466C Assessee by Shri Farrokh V Irani/ Sh Yogesh Thar Revenue by Shri Subachan Ram, Dt.of hearing 31st Jan 2012 Dt of pronouncement 2nd Mar 2012 ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, RAO, JM These cross appeals three by the assesse and three by the revenue are directed against the orders of the CIT(A) dated 12.3.2003,13.3.2003 and 31.3.2003 for the AYs 199798 to 199900 respectively. 2 Cybertech Systems & Software Ltd ITA No 2781/Mum/2003 (AY 199798) ITA No 2782/Mum/2003 (AY 199889). ITA No 2863/Mum/2003 (AY 199900) ITA No 3670/Mum/2003 (AY 199798) ITA No 3671/Mum/2003 (AY 199889). ITA No 4482/Mum/2003 (AY 199900). 2 The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals; therefore, the grounds raised for the AY 199798 are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in denying exemption u/s 10B to the appellant. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in restricting benefit of deduction u/s 80H%jPt to the extent of 10% of receipts from CIC Inc. USA, (excluding reimbursements for traveling), while the appellant has claimed the whole of the revenue towards customization and development of software eligible for deduction u/s. 8OHHE. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in not giving retrospective effect to the CBDT notification dated 26.9.2000, which allowed benefit of Sec.10B and Sec. 8OHHE to human resource services. 4. The learned CIT (A) erred in not allowing the netting off of interest and also erred in excluding 90% there of u/s 8OHHE(3) while the Bombay High Court has held that each and every and interest income can't be excluded. 5. The CIT (A) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C though the A.O. had not made any speaki