abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Delhi High Court Orders M/S Swastik Oil Products Manufacturing ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 April, 2024 $~5 * + ARB.P. 976/2023 and I.A. 3442/2024 M/S SWASTIK OIL PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING NAVSARI PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate with Ms. Ankita and Sheereen, Advocate (M: 7042933661). versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Akash Vajpai, SPC (M: 9319511996). JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 15.04.2024 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A. 3442/2024 ( for modification) in ARB.P. 976/2023 2. This is an application on behalf of the Petitioner seeking modification of the order dated 5th February, 2024. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Court has given prima facie findings in the said order that the Petitioner is not a small or micro enterprise but a medium enterprise and hence is not liable to benefit in terms of Section 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006, which deserves to be modified. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon a notification dated 18th October, 2022, which provides that irrespective of any reclassification, the position that was applicable between buyer and seller at the time when the contract was entered into, would still be applicable to the transaction. ARB.P. 976/2023 Page 1 of 4 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 17/04/2024 at 00:00:44 4. Further, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance upon a decision of this Court in Sterlite Power Transmission Limited v. EPC Solutions LLP and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3890, where the Court had observed as under: "31. Going by the settled legal position, as also the fact that the MSMED Act, 2006 is a beneficial legislation for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and ought to be construed in a manner that is beneficial to such enterprises. Thus, even if on the date when the reference application was filed before the MSEFC, the supplier i.e. Respondent No. 1 had upgraded itself to the Medium Enterprises, it cannot be deprived of the benefits of the provisions of the MSME Act, 2006 and the impugned reference order would be liable to be upheld. 32. In addition to the above reasoning, the Court is also informed of the notification dated 18th October, 2022 issued by the Ministry of MSME, which reads as
The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ..... Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 640 of 2016 Amarkant Jha ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ..... Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 676 of 2016 Devendra Kumar ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ..... Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 739 of 2016 Manik Singh ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ..... Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 763 of 2016 Brahmdeo Prasad Keshri ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ..... Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 769 of 2016 Dilip Kumar Gupta ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ..... Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 837 of 2016 Deo Narayan Parihast ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ..... Opp. Party WITH A.B.A. No. 1006 of 2016 Maheshwari Devi ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ..... Opp. Party ­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­ For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (In A.B.A Nos. 3785/15, 676, 739,763 and 769 of 2016. Mr. Manoj Kr. Jha, Advocate (in A.B.A. No. 640 of 2016) Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate ( In A.B.A Nos. 837 & 1006 of 2016) For the C.B.I. : Mr. K.P. Deo, S.C. 2 ­­­­­­­­­ 16/Dated: 03rd October, 2016 Since all the anticipatory bail applications arise out of one and the same R.C. Case No. 15(A) of 2012­D, hence they are taken up together and disposed of by common order. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 15(A) of 2012­D for the offence registered under sections 120B read with sections 201, 423, 424, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending the Court of learned Special Judge, C.B.I­cum­A.D.J­I, Dhanbad. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the basis of complaint dated 31.10.2011 of Raj Kumar Lakra, I/C Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi, Jharkhand, a case being F.I.R. No. 25 of 2011 was lodged at Vigilance Bureau Police Station, Ranchi for the offence punishable under sections 120B, 201, 109, 423, 424, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477A, 419, 420, 409 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, section 25 A of Santhal Pargana Regulation­II, 1886 and Section 53 of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act and Government of Jharkhand Vide Notification No. 06/CBI­713/2011/4523 dated 26.11.2011 under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, accorded consent for CBI Investigation of said Vigilance P.S. Case No. 25 of 211 and request the Government of India to issue necessary orders for C.B.I investigation, accordingly investigation of the
First Newsmedia Private Ltd. ....Respondent. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Yes. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singh Atti, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Suri and Mr. Ajay Shandil, Advocates. Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Through Arbitration Case No. 58 of 2019, cast under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, readwith Section 19 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the apposite aggrieved objectors/petitioners, cast an onslaught, vis­a­vis, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on 02/12/2019 20:26:22 :::HCHP ...2... the validity of the award made by the learned Arbitrator, . upon, Reference No. 52/2017. 2. The operative portion of the impugned award, is, adverbatim, hence, reproduced hereinafter. Moreover, given the award becoming pronounced on 9.1.2019, and, the petition thereagainst becoming instituted herebefore, on 10.4.2019, does render the extant petition, to, become instituted herebefore rather within the apposite prescribed period, of, limitation. " The claim of the petitioner is admitted and an award for a sum of Rs.16,01,522/­ (principal) & interest on this amount u/s 16 of MSMED Act 2006 up to Rs. 17,74,462/­. Total Rs.3375984/­ (Rs. Thirty three lakhs seventy five thousand, nine hundred and eight four only) due up to the date of filing the reference is passed against the buyers and in favour of the claimant to be paid within 30 days from the date of this award. The buyers shall also be liable to pay to the petitioner interest from the date of filing the present reference i.e 4.1.2018 up to the date of passing the award and future interest from the date of passing the award till the payment is made, as per interest rate fixed u/s 16 ::: Downloaded on 02/12/2019 20:26:22 :::HCHP ...3... of the MSMED, 2006. The petitioner is further . entitled to get reimbursed arbitrator's fee of Rs. 40,000/­ from the buyer. The petitioner in addition to that shall also be entitled to get the litigation expenses and other miscellaneous expenses such as counsels fee, postal & stationary charges clerical expenses, traveling expenses etc. to the extent of Rs.60,000/­, against the buyer. This will form part of the award. The petitioner shall be entitled to recover the amount from HPCC through its office bearers. No award is passed against the INC or its office bearers as they were not the party in the reference sent to this tribunal and this tribunal can't travel beyond the reference. However there is no bar to recover the amount awarded in execution from its constituent i.e INC through its office bearers as per provisions of law. The award is duly prepared, printed and signed in three originals and one original each will be sent to the applicant and respondents and the third original award on stamp papers alongwith the record received by the undersigned and the proceedings file be sent to the chairman, HP Micro
1. Mrs.Indira Devi Accused : W/o. Dharmanath Prasad Vishwakarma Mubarak Lane, Dahiyawan, Chhapra, Saran 2 C.C. 28431 / 2022 Bihar 841 301 2. Mr.Manish Vishwakarma W/o. Dharmanath Prasad Vishwakarma Mubarak Lane, Dahiyawan, Chhapra, Saran Bihar 841 301 Phone : 8651887762...... DELETED as per order 11.01.2024 3. Mr.Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma W/o. Dharmanath Prasad Vishwakarma Mubarak Lane, Dahiyawan, Chhapra, Saran Bihar 841 301 Email : [email protected] DELETED as per order 11.01.2024 (By Dr.Channaiah /vishwakarma Adv.) Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. Final Order : Accused is convicted Date of Order : 01.07.2025 3 C.C. 28431 / 2022 JUDGMENT The present complaint is filed under section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act"). 02. The case of the Complainant is narrated briefly as under : It is stated that, the Complainant and accused are friends. In the year 2017 the accused has approached the Complainant for financial assistance in order to improve business and renovation of their house. As per the reqeust of the accused persons the Complainant has transferred a sum of Rs.16,00,000/ to the bank account of the accused persons as under. DATE OF AMOUNT TRANSFERRED BANK DETAILS OF ONLINE TRANSFER BANK TO ACCUSED ACCUSED REFERENCE TRANSFER NAME NUMBER FROM ICICI BANK 19.08.2017 5,00,000/ INDIRA DEVI IDBI BANK, 1275657138 CHAPRA 25.04.2018 3,00,000/ MANISH UNITED BANK OF 1438431754 VISHWAKARM INDIA, CHAPRA 4 C.C. 28431 / 2022 A 03.08.2018 2,00,000/ INDIRA DEVI IDBI BANK, 821514808042 CHAPRA 16.10.2018 1,00,000/ MANISH UNITED BANK OF 828909440495 VISHWAKARM INDIA, CHAPRA A 03.06.2019 2,00,000/ INDIRA DEVI IDBI BANK, 1722050625 CHAPRA 19.08.2019 3,00,000/ MANISH UNITED BANK OF 1779976158 VISHWAKARM INDIA, CHAPRA A It is further stated that, the accused persons have assured to repay the above said amount before 2021. When the Complainant has approached the accused persons for the repayment of his loan amount accordingly the accused persons have issued cheque bearing Nos.040549, 040550 and 040551 for Rs.5,00,000/ each having dated 20.05.2022 all the cheques drawn on IDBI Bank, Chapra, Bihar producing to the account accused No.1 Indira Devi. When the Complainant has presented all the cheques for encashment with his banker on the same day, they returned unpaid with shara as "Payment stopped by the drawer" as per endorsement dated 30.05.2022.
C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore 560 093. PAN: AAACN6992K APPELLANT RESPONDENT & IT(TP)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 201112 (By Assessee) Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee by : Advocate Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT Revenue by : (DR) Date of Hearing : 03032022 Date of Pronouncement : 29042022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present cross appeals has been filed by revenue as well as assessee against order dated 29.12.2015 passed by Ld.ITO Ward 5(1)(1), Page 2 of 53 IT(TP)A Nos. 280 & 319/Bang/2016 Bangalore under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act, for assessment year 201112 on following grounds of appeal: Revenue's appeal "1. The directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel are opposed to the law and not on the facts and circumstance of the case. 2. The ld.DRP erred in holding that the size and turnover of the company are deciding factors for treating a company as a comparable and accordingly erred in excluding the companies as comparables. 3. Whether the DRP is correct in excluding on the basis of Turnover filter, while the comparable is qualifying all the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the TPO. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Id.DRP erred in holding that foreign exchange loss or gain is a part of operating expense or operating income and exclusion of depreciation from cost as the case may be, when the TPO has excluded this data from that of the comparables. 5. Whether the DRP is correct in foreign exchange fluctuation as operating in nature and exclusion of depreciation from cost while treating foreign exchange fluctuation and deprecation nonoperating in nature as applied by the TPO. 6. Whether the Ld.DRP was right in seeking exact comparability while searching for comparable companies of the assessee under TNMM method whereas requirement of law and international jurisprudence requires seeking similar comparable companies. 7. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel may be reversed and that assessment order be restored. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any other grounds on or before hearing of the appeal." Assessee's Appeal "The Appellant submits as under: 1. Assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law a) That the final assessment order passed by the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the AO') is bad in law and on facts, and has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. b) That, without prejudice to the above, the final assessment order passed by the AO is bad in law to the Page 3 of 53 IT(TP)A Nos. 280 & 319/Bang/2016 extent the AO did not issue to the Appellant a show cause notice as per proviso to Section 92C(3) of the Incometax Act, 1961 ['the Act']. c) That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Respondent erred in not providing the Appellant an opportunity of being heard prior to making a reference to the Additional Commissioner of IncomeTax (Transfer Pricing) 2(1), Bangalore ['the TPO' for short], which is violative of the principles of nat
1.Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2.Chief Engineer, V.O.Chidambaranar Port Authority, Administrative Office, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin. 3.Superintending Engineer, Civil Engineering Department V.O.Chidambaranar Port Authority, Administrative Office, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin. _________ Page 1 of 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 01:26:48 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.33167 of 2025 4.Executive Engineer, Civil Engineering Department, V.O.Chidambaranar Port Authority, Administrative Office, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin. 5.M/s.Va Tech WABAG Ltd Ramky Infrastructure Ltd (Joint Venture), WABAG House, No.17, 200 Feet Thoraipakkam Pallavaram Main Road, Sunnambu Kolathur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 117, India. Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the 3rd respondent in order bearing Nil dated 17.11.2025 in respect of Notice Inviting Tender No.R01CE/RCM and BMR/202526/D.886 dated 02.04.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct Respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's financial bid. For Petitioner : Mr.Srinath Sridevam Senior Counsel for Mr.P.M.N.Bhagavath Krishnan For R1 : Mr.K.Maharajan Central Government Standing Counsel For R2R4 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar _________ Page 2 of 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 01:26:48 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.33167 of 2025 ORDER The petitioner in the above writ petition seeks to quash the order of the 3rd respondent dated 17.12.2025 in respect of Notice Inviting Tender R01CE/RCM and BMR/202526/D.886 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's financial bid. 2. The facts of the case : 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that on 02.04.2025, the 2 nd respondent had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) calling for contractors to establish a 3 MLD desalination plant at Thoothukudi Port based on sea water reverse osmosis Post. As per the tender notifi
Madras High Court M/S. Rama Enterprises vs Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation ... on 30 October, 2023 W.P. No. 17358 of 2021 DATED : 30.10.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 17358 of 2021 and W.M.P. No. 18395 of 2021 M/s. Rama Enterprises Rep. By its Partner Mr. Rajesh.B Old No.146, New No. 196 East Coast Road Injambakkam, Chennai – 600041. … Petitioner vs 1. Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Rep. By its Chairperson Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. 2. M/s.Swastik Associates “Swastick Enclave” Plot No.5, Pleasant Avenue Sakthi Nagar, Porur Chennai – 600041. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 2050, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the First Respondent and quash the impugned order dated 29.01.2021 made in MSEFC/CR/136/2019 and directing the First Respondent refer the matter for arbitration in accordance with Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/10 W.P. No. 17358 of 2021 For Petitioner : Mr. M.Vijayan for M/s. King and Partridge For Respondents : Mr. S.Yashwanth, Additional Government Pleader (for R1) Mr. V.Arunagiri (for R2) ORDER Heard Mr. M.Vijayan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. S.Yashwath, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. V.Arunagiri, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Second Respondent had made a claim in Case No. MSEFC/CR/136/2019 before the First Respondent under Section 18(1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED Act' for short), claiming payment of Rs. 9,23,053/ from the Petitioner towards remaining amount due for goods supplied with interest calculated in terms of that Act, in which an order dated 29.01.2021 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to pay the principal amount of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 W.P. No. 17358 of 2021 Rs. 4,94,103/ together with compounded interest with monthly rests at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in Sections 15 and 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006 from the appointed due dates respectively till payment, which is assailed in this Writ Petition. 3. In response to the contentions raised by the Second Respondent that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he has to only resort to filing of an 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, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Vijeta Construction vs
Jabalpur, Dated : 21.11.2019. Mr. Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent. This appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the revenue against the orderdated 15.12.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur in ITA Nos.175 & 177/JAB/2004, has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether COD's approval is mandatory in cases where assessee is not PSU but DDOs who are disbursing the payments to the employees and contractors are forced to deduct tax as per provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act." Counsel for the parties submitted that a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act was filed before the Tribunal, where the order impugned against which substantial question of law has been framed has been recalled by the Tribunal. In view of the above, it was not disputed that the present appeal has been rendered infructuous. A prayer was made that it may be disposed of as such. Ordered accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ( VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA ) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SAks/ Date: 2019.11.25 15:56:10 +05'30'
2(1), Limited, Bhopal. Paryavas Bhawan, Jail Road, Bhopal. Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri V.K.Karan, Addl. CIT DR Respondent by : Shri S.S.Deshpande, C.A. PAN NO. : AADCM7515Q I.T.A.No. 291/Ind/2009. A.Y. : 200304 Madhya Pradesh Audhyogik Vs. ACIT, Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) , 3(1), D.J.Dave & Company, Indore. 5253, IInd Floor, Dawa Bazar, R.N.T.Marg, : 2 : Indore. Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Sachin Kheradia, C.A. Respondent by : Smt. Aparna Karan, Addl. CIT DR PAN NO. : AACCM1081C I.T.A.No.187/Ind/2009. A.Y. : 198889 ACIT, Vs. M.P.Rajya Van Vikask Nigam, 2(1), 5th Floor, Bhopal. Panchanan Building, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal. Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri V.K.Karan, Addl. CIT DR Respondent by : Shri Anil Khabya, C. A. PAN NO. : AABCM1366K I.T.A.No. 14/Ind/2009. A.Y. : 200506 M. P. Lalghu Udyog Nigam Vs. ACIT, 2 : 3 : Limited, 2(1), 4th Floor, Panchanan Building, Bhopal. T.T.Nagar, Bhopal. Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Anil Khabya, C. A Respondent by : Shri V.K.Karan, Addl. CIT DR PAN NO. : AAAAM2180N I.T.A.No. 943/Ind/2004. A.Y. : 198283 M. P. State Coop.Oilseed Vs. ACIT, Growers Fed. Limited, 1(1), 1,Arera Hills, Bhopal. Bhopal. Appellant Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Smt. Aparna Karan, Addl. CIT DR 3 : 4 : ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, A.M. The above captioned Appeals of the Revenue filed in I.T.A.Nos. 04/Ind/2009 and 187/Ind/2009 are directed against the orders of CIT(A)I, Bhopal, dated 17.10.2008 and 30.1.2009 and relate to assessment years 200405 & 198889 respectively and assessee's appeals in I.T.A.Nos. 291/Ind/09, 14/Ind/09 and 943/Ind/04 are directed against the orders of CIT(A)I, Indore, dated 27.3.2009, CIT(A)I, Bhopal, dated 11.11.2008 and CIT(A)I, Bhopal dated 27.08.2004 and relate to assessment years 200304, 200506 and 198283 respectively. Different assessees are there in all these appeals. 2. We have heard the parties. It is noticed that in these appeals, the assessees are Government undertakings/concerns,wherein Committee on Disputes' permission is required. Similar issue has been decided by this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 17.07.09 in I.T.A.No.221 & 269/Ind/2009 in the case of M.P.Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, Bhopal, for 4 : 5 : the assessment years 199899 and 200607 and relevant finding has been given in paras 2 & 3, which read as under : 2. During the course of hearing before us, it was admitted by both the parties that the assessee is a State Government Undertaking. Since the parties are Government Undertaking, ther