abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC, Mr. Kunal Dutt, Ms. Karnika Singh and Mr. Vignaraj Pasayat, Advs. + W.P.(CRL) 245/2016 and Crl.M.A.1336/2016 PICHESWAR GADDE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. L.M. Asthana, Mr. Siddhant Asthana, Ms.Sahiba Pantel, Mr. Raksh Kumar Bhardawaj and Mr. Chhetarpal Singh, Advocates versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC, Ms. Karnika Singh, Mr. Vignaraj Pasayat and Ms. Aastha Jain, Advocates HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA WP(C) 856/2016 & connected matters Page 2 of 101 JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions have raised common questions of law of general interest involving provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, "PMLA") in the context of a case under investigation with Enforcement Directorate of Ministry of Finance in the Government of India (Headquarters Investigation), it having been described as Enforcement Case Information Report No.ECIR/HQ/02/HIU/2015 registered on 27.10.2015 (for short, "ECIR") and, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided through this common judgment. THE PETITIONS 2. It may be mentioned at the outset that the first petitioner (Shri Virbhadra Singh) in the first above captioned petition (the first petition or case) has been in active political and public life for last several decades, having been a member of the Union legislature or the legislature of the State of Himachal Pradesh from where he hails, and during such period having served as a Minister of the Union of India or Minister in the cabinet in the Government of Himachal Pradesh, he presently being the Chief Minister. The second petitioner (Smt. Pratibha Singh) of the said first petition is his wife. 3. The names of the other three petitioners (Shri Chunni Lal Chauhan, Shri Vikramaditya Singh and Picheswar Gadde) in the above captioned matters are stated to have figured during the course of investigation, amongst others, into the ECIR thereby giving rise to issuance of summons to them under Section 50(2) and (3) of WP(C) 856/2016 & connected matters
1.The Chief Engineer (A/C), TWAD Board, No.30, Bharathi Park Road, Siruvani Nagar, Coimbatore – 641 043. 2.The Superintending Engineer, TWAD Board, Coimbatore. 3.The Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, Sewerage Division, Pollachi. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the withheld amount of 25% on substituted items/additional items, the final bill, withheld amount and other pending bills as per 1/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2673 of 2023 contract with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of passing the respective running account bills, within a period stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.N.L.Rajesh Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Natarajan For Respondents : Mr.T.Mohan Senior Counsel for Mrs.Y.Kantha ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the withheld amount of 25% on substituted items/additional items, the final bill, withheld amount and other pending bills as per contract with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of passing the respective running account bills, within a period stipulated by this Court. 2.The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Writ Petition, are as follows: 2/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2673 of 2023 2.1.According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner Company is a highly reputed civil contractor in Tamil Nadu and has executed project work worth about 1,500 crores under Ground Sewage Scheme in Tiruchirappalli, Srirangam, Thanjavur, Tirunelveli, Sivagangai, Ramanathapuram, Villupuram, Udumalpet, Arokkonam, Avadi, Ambattur, Maduravoyal and Salem and Sewage Treatment Plant in Villupuram, Udumalpet, Arokkonam and Salem. 2.2.While so, the first respondent, who is the Chief Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Sewerage Board, invited tender for laying an underground sewerage system in Udumalpet Municipality in Tiruppur District. The petitioner was the successful bidder in the tender and the first respondent issued a work order vide letter No.Udumalaipet UGSS/T3/CE/CBE/2013, dated 27.03.2013. The scope of work given to the pe
Piyush Periwal & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Prasad, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocates. Lzafeer Ahmad. B.F. for R3 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 947, 1001 of 2021, 525, 526, 499, 612 of 2022 1 With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 525 of 2022 (Arising out of Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in IA No.43 of 2021 in C.P. (IB) No.09/GB/ 2019) IN THE MATTER OF: PLBB Products Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Madhulika Periwal & Ors. ...Respondents (Substituted vide order dt. 09.01.2024 in IA No.5654/2023) Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Ms. Akanksha Kaushik, Ms. Heena Kochar, Ms. Meena, Advocates, Lzafeer Ahmad. B.F. For Respondents: Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar and Mr. Kaustubh Prakash, Advocates. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 526 of 2022 & I.A. No. 2474 of 2022 (Arising out of Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in IA No.27 of 2021 in C.P. (IB) No.09/GB/ 2019) IN THE MATTER OF: Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) ...Appellant Versus Madhulika Periwal & Ors. ...Respondents (Substituted vide order dt. 09.01.2024 in IA No.5651/2023) Present: For Appellant: Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG, Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidhartha Barua, Mr. Praful Jindal, Ms. Tahira Kathpalia, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Amit Pareek, RP Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocates. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 947, 1001 of 2021, 525, 526, 499, 612 of 2022 2 With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 499 of 2022 (Arising out of Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in IA No.43 of 2021 in C.P. (IB) No.09/GB/ 2019) IN THE MATTER OF: Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) ...Appellant Versus Madhulika Periwal & Ors. ...Respondents (Substituted vide order dt. 09.01.2024 in IA No.5656/2023) Present: For Appellant: Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG, Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidhartha Barua, Mr. Praful Jindal, Ms. Tahira Kathpalia, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Amit Pareek, RP Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocates. Mr. Kaustubh Prakash, Advocate for R3. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 612 of 2022 (Arising out of Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in IA No.43 of 2021 in C.P. (IB) No.0
Madras High Court M/S. Climax Overseas Private Ltd vs The Chairperson on 31 October, 2023 W.P. No. 12274 of 2023 DATED : 31.10.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 12274 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos. 12120 and 12121 of 2023 M/s. Climax Overseas Private Ltd. Represented by its Authorized Person Plot No.152, Sector3 IMT Manesar Gurgaon120050. … Petitioner vs 1. The Chairperson MSE Facilitation Council Chennai/Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce Guindy, Chennai – 600032. 2. M/s. M+R Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd No.56/57, III Floor, Rajaji Salai Chennai – 600001. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 2050, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the case relating to the impugned order in MSEFC/CR/213/2021 dated 11.08.2022 passed by the First Respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. T.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr. S.Yashwanth, AGP (R1) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/9 W.P. No. 12274 of 2023 R2 – No appearance ORDER Heard Mr. T.Ramesh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.Yashwanth, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. Though notice had been served on the Second Respondent, they have not entered appearance in person or through Counsel. 3. The Second Respondent had made a claim in Case MSEFC/CR/213/2021 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. 22,49,810/ towards service rendered with interest in terms of the MSMED Act, in which an order dated 11.08.2022 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to pay the principal sum of Rs. 17,22,434/ 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 from the appointed due dates respectively till payment, which is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9 W.P. No. 12274 of 2023 assailed in this Writ Petition. 4. 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 M/s. Indus Smelters Ltd. (Order dated 23.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 5934 of 2021), where after referring to the relevant provisions of the MSMED Act and A & C Act, it has been held that the discretionary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked when the prescribed procedure for conciliation has not taken place before passing the arbitral award i
Mumbai400021. Mumbai400021. PAN NO. AADCS 2973 A Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 201415 to 201819 & 202021 to 202122 DCIT Central Circle4(4), M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India 1410, Maker Chamber V, Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai400021. Mumbai400021. PAN NO. AADCS 2973 A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue by : Dr. Kishor Dhule, CITDR Date of He aring : 13/05/2024 Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2024 M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. 2 ITA Nos. 3491, 3474, 3473, 3472 & 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 ORDER PER BENCH The captioned appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income (Appeals)52, 52, Mumbai [in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)'] for assessment years 201415 2014 to 201819 and 202021 to 202122. Being common n issue in dispute disputes involved in these appeals, appeals same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 2. First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for assessment year 201415. 2014 15. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal in ITA No. 3491/Mum/2023 are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Learned Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment completed u/s.143(3) r.w. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. circumstances of the case as well as in law, the 2. On the facts and circumstances Learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the assessing officer to examine therealization of exports, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Act. circumstances of the case as well as in law, the 3. On the facts and circumstances Learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to the extent of Rs. u/s 69C of the Act, without considering the facts & 29,63,580/u/s circumstances of the case. M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. 3491, 3474, 3473, 3472 & 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 2.1 The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal in ITA No. 3606/Mum/2023 are reproduced as under: 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the addition of amortization on goodwill of Rs. 16,16,00,000/ to book profit for the purpose of MAT u/s 115JB of the Act, 1961." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 10AA
BHUMI KWANG JV & 3....Defendant(s) Appearance: MR RS SANJANWALA, SR. ADV. with MR DHAVAL D VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADV. with MR UTKARSH B JANI, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Defendant(s) No. 1 4 and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 12/02/2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. This appeal is filed by the board of trustees of Kandla Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as "KPT") challenging the judgment dated 31.5.2014 passed by the Page 1 of 54 C/FA/1914/2014 JUDGMENT learned Additional District Judge, Gandhidham at Kachchh in Civil Miscellaneous Application (Arbitration Petition) No.12 of 2014 filed by respondent No.1 herein. By such judgment and order the learned Judge partly allowed the application of respondent No.1 restraining KPT from encashing various bank guarantees given by the said respondent drawn from three different banks. While doing so, the trial Court directed the said respondent to periodically renew such bank guarantees till the decision of the arbitrator is rendered. 2. The facts are as under: 2.1 Appellant KPT is the trust constituted under the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 and undertakes and regulates various port related activities in the area of Kandla port in exercise of powers contained under the said Act. Respondent No.1 is a joint venture of Bumi Geo Engineering Limited and Pembinaan Kwang Sdn Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as "Bumi"). Respondents No.2 to 4 are different banks. 3. KPT awarded a contract to Bumi for the purpose of modification and strengthening of existing cargo Page 2 of 54 C/FA/1914/2014 JUDGMENT berths at Kandla. Work order for such purpose was issued on 10.2.2012 and envisaged the contract period of 30 months. The entire work, therefore, had to be completed by 9.8.2014. We may take note of salient relevant features of the terms of this contract from the copy of the tender documents. The estimated contract value was Rs.200 crores (rounded off). The period of completion of the work was 30 months. The agency to whom the contract would be awarded had to provide performance security in terms of clause 1.34 of the tender document, which reads as under: "1.34 Performance Security Security deposit shall consist of two parts;a) Performance Guarantee to be submitted at award of work, and b) Retention money to be recovered from Running Bills. 1.34.1 Performance Guarantee should be 10% of Contract price of which 5% of contract price should be submitted as Bank Guarantee within 21 days of receipt of letter of acceptance and balance 5% recovered as Retention Money from Running Bills. Recovery of 5% of Retention Money to commence from the first bill onwards @ 5% of bill value from each bill. Retention money be refunded within 14 days from the date of payment of
1.The Senior Deputy General Manager (HRIR, Estt., Rectt & CSR), Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL), High Pressure Boiler Plant, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District – 14. 2.The Assistant General Manager (HR), Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL), Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District – 14. 3.The Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL), Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District – 14. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order dated 08.05.2023 bearing reference No.HR:CE:IUT: 2212544 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. 1/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.14306 of 2023 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan for Mr.R.M.Mahesh Kumaravel For Respondents : Mr.R.Sankara Narayanan Senior Counsel for Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order, dated 08.05.2023 on the file of the first respondent. 2.The petitioner was working as a Technician (Machinist), Factory Civil Maintenance, HPBP, Trichy in the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), which is managed by the respondents. The petitioner was elected as the working President of the Boiler Plant Employees Union/Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), BHEL, Trichy during the election held on 28.01.2022 (hereinafter mentioned as 'INTUC, BHEL, Trichy'). The said INTUC, BHEL, Trichy is a registered Trade Union and affiliated with the Indian National Trade Union Congress, New Delhi. The list of newly elected office bearers and Executive Committee of the INTUC, BHEL, Trichy was furnished to the 2/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.14306 of 2023 Joint Commissioner of Labour, Trichy by the President of Tamil Nadu, INTUC, BHEL, Trichy on 29.01.2022. The All India President of INTUC approved the list of office bearers and Executive Committee and communicated the said list to the third respondent for approval on 31.01.2022. 3.One former member, namely P.Balasubramani of INTUC, BHEL, Trichy was expelled from the Union along with some other members and the same was confirmed by the All India President of INTUC vide communication, dated 31.01.2022, addressed to the third respondent. The said P.Balasubramani approached the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, challenging the election process of the newly elected office bearers and Executive Committee of the INTUC,
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Yokogawa India Ltd vs BangaloreLtu on 22 September, 2023 CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE REGIONAL BENCH COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 343 of 2011 [Arising out of OrderinOriginal No. 82/2010ST (Commr.) dt. 24/11/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore] Yokogawa India Limited ......Appellant Plot No.96, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore 560 100 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & ......Respondent Service Tax, Bangalore Bangalore South Commissionerate, C R Buildings, Queens Road, Bangalore 560 001 WITH (i) Service Tax Appeal No. 2559 of 2011 (M/s. Yokogawa India Limited) (Arising out of OrderinOriginal No. 52/2011ST (Commr.) dt. 30/05/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore) (ii) Service Tax Appeal No. 2560 of 2011 (M/s. Yokogawa India Limited) (Arising out of OrderinOriginal No. 53/2011ST (Commr.) dt. 26/05/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore) (iii) Service Tax Appeal No. 26441 of 2013 (M/s. Yokogawa India Limited) (Arising out of OrderinOriginal No. 38/2013ST (Commr.) dt. 28/02/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore) (iv) Service Tax Appeal No. 21868 of 2014 (M/s. Yokogawa India Limited) (Arising out of OrderinOriginal No. 217/2013ST (Commr.) dt. 05/12/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore) Page 1 of 34 ST/343/2011, ST/2559/2011, ST/2560/2011, ST/26441/2013, ST/21868/2014, ST/20119/2017 (v) Service Tax Appeal No. 20119 of 2017 (M/s. Yokogawa India Limited) (Arising out of OrderinOriginal No. BLRLTUNT000COM202016 dt. 28/10/2016 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore) A PPEARANCE: Mr. K. Parameswaran, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. D.S. Sangeetha, Addl. Commissioner (AR), Mr. P. Saravana Perumal, Addl. Commissioner (AR), Mr. K.A. Jathin, Deputy Commissioner (AR) and Mr. H. Jayathirtha, Supdtt. (AR) for the respondent HON'BLE Dr. D. M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE Mrs. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 2094920954/2023 DATE OF HEARING: 13.04.2023 DATE OF DECISION: 22.09.2023 PER: D. M. MISRA These six appeals are filed against the respective Orders inOriginal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. The details of appeals are tabulated as under: Sl. Appeal No. Impugned Period Service Tax Interest Details of No. order No. (Rs.) Penalties Date (Rs.) 1 ST/343/2011 Sl. No. 16.05.2008 3,37,53,358/ Not Penalty 82/2010 to Quantified under 76 ST 31.08.2009 (Commr.) dated 24/11/2010 2 ST/2559/2011 Sl. No. 01.09.2009 56,87,299 Not Penalty u/s 52/2011 to Quantified 76 & U/s ST 31.03.2010 u/s 77 (Commr.) Rs. 5000/ dated of Finance 30/05/2011 Act. 3 ST/2560/2011 Sl. No. 01.04.2010 1,67,46,060/ Not Penalty u/s Page 2 of 34 ST/343/2011, ST/2559/2011, ST/2560/2011, ST/26441/2013, ST/21868/2014, ST/20119/2017 53/2011 to Quantified 76 & ST 30.12.2011 U/s77 (Commr.) Rs. 5000/ dated
Others" which is stated to be fixed for 01.05.2023. A detailed written statement in the civil proceedings had also been filed by the private respondents and no objection was raised qua the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, at Pathankot or that MSME Act had ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. During the pendency of the above said civil suit, a complaint under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006(hereinafter referred to as the MSMED Act')was filed on 14.02.2018 without disclosing the factum of pendency of civil suit and n