abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
DLF Cyber City, DLF PhaseII, Gurgaon. PAN : AAACB 3906 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. P. Singh, AR Shri Manoneet Dalal, Adv. Shri Yeeshu Arora, CA, Shri Yishu Goel, AR Respondent by : Shri T. M. Shivakumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 31052017 Date of pronouncement : 24082017 ORDER PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.09.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act by the ACIT, Circle 4(1), New Delhi relating to assessment year 201213. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee Baxter India Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in 1997 and is engaged in trading and manufacturing of CAPD bags, plasma based proteins, products for renal dialysis and certain chemicals. It is also engaged in trading of certain products and also provides captive IT 2 ITA No.6158/Del/2016 Enabled Services (ITES) to its associate enterprises. The assessee company filed its return of income on 30.11.2012 declaring total income of Rs.20,30,25,560/. Subsequently, the assessee revised its return of income on 27.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.19,95,75,120/. The Assessing Officer referred the matter to the TPO for determining the arm's length price in respect of the international transactions entered into by the assessee as per the provisions of section 92CA(3) of the I.T. Act. In response to notice u/s 92CA(2), the assessee furnished various details. The TPO observed that the assessee has reported the following international transactions in the Form No.3CEB : S. No. International Transaction Amount in INR 1 Purchase of raw material 546730531 2 Sale of goods 612259008 3 Payment of royalty 64377766 4 Availing of services 7534649 5 Purchase of finished goods 1123924565 6 Provision of services 16210677 7 Provision of services (ITES) 10782582 8 Purchase of spare parts and fixed assets 113506642 9 Interest on loan 13561735 10 Networking charges 23727954 11 Cost recharge paid/payable 10908058 12 Cost recharge received/ receivable 24602285 3. The TPO issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to justify the arm's length price in respect of its international transactions representing ITES, purchase of fixed assets, and receivables etc. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the TPO proposed adjustment of Rs.14,10,49,533/ on 3 ITA No.6158/Del/2016 account of the transactions under the trading and manufacturing segment. The details of which are as under : "24. The cumulative adjustments made in this case are tabulated below. S.N. Nature of international ALP ALP Adjustment u/s transaction determined by determined by 92CA (INR) taxpayer (INR) this office (INR) 1. Provision of ITES 11,86,08,402/ 13,76,39,659/ 1,90,31,257/ 2. Purchase of fixed 11,35,06,642/ Nil 11,35,06,642/ assets 3. Receivable Nil 85,11,634/ 85,11,634/ Total 14,10,49,533/ 4. T
M/S ANIVET HEALTH CARE THROUGH ITS PARTNER AJAY S/O LATE SHRI SATYAPRAKASH BHARGAV Appearance: Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Bagadiya, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, Advocate for the respondent. Heard on : 02.12.2025 Pronounced on : 05.01.2026 ORDER With consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. This civil revision under Section 115 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the judgement debtor, being aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2022 passed in Execution Case No.EXAB/113/2018 by the 6 t h District Judge, Shajapur, whereby the objections raised by the petitioners u/S 47 of CPC seeking adjustment/recovery of alleged excess payment made towards predeposit have been rejected. 2. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the respondent, a smallscale Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 06012026 10:32:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHCIND:37786 2 CR3022022 industry, supplied goods and services pursuant to a work order issued by the petitioners. Disputes arose regarding delayed payment, leading to proceedings before the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bhopal under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as 'MSMED Act'). The Council passed an award dated 12.08.2013 directing payment of principal amount of Rs.30,52,044/ alongwith compound interest at three times the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India, with monthly rests, as mandated u/S 16 of the MSMED Act. 3. Challenges to the award in appeals under Section 34 and subsequent appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were dismissed, and the award attained finality. During pendency of challenges, the petitioners deposited 75% of the awarded amount as predeposit, which was calculated on a higher interest rate by mistake. The respondent withdrew the deposited amount in parts. Postfinality of the award, the respondent initiated execution proceedings claiming the full amount as per the statutory interest u/S 16 of the MSMED Act. The petitioners filed objections claiming overpayment and seeking adjustment/refund of excess amount. 4. The Executing Court rejected the objections, inter alia, observing that the decree does not contemplate recovery by the judgmentdebtor from the decreeholder, and until the decreeholder deposits any excess amount in Court, the judgmentdebtor cannot claim receipt thereof. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Executing Court erred in not appreciating that the correct interest rate u/S 16 of the MSMED
Chairman & Managing Director, ITDC and others (In all writ petitions) ...... Opp. Parties For Petitioners : M/s.Sujan Ku. Roy Choudhury and K.Roy Choudhury (In all writ petitions) For Opp. Parties : Mr.N.K.Mishra, Sernior Advocate M/s.A.K.Roy, A.Mishra and 3 P.Dash (For O.Ps.1 to 3 and 5 in all W.Ps) ......... PRESENT: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY Date of hearing:06.02.2018 Date of Judgment:11.04.2018 Dr. D.P.Choudhury, J. Challenge has been made to the inaction of the opposite parties for nonpayment of the Voluntarily Retirement Scheme (in short 'VRS') amount in accordance with Department of Public Enterprises Guidelines (hereinafter called as 'the guidelines'). 2. Since the above writ petitions have got common question of law, they are being taken up together for disposal by this common judgment. FACTS 3. The factual matrix leading to the writ petitions is that the petitioners are the employees of Hotel Nilachal Ashok, Puri having been appointed in between 1989 to 1991. The Indian Tourism Development Corporation is primarily a Central Government Public Undertaking (hereafter called as "the ITDC") and it entered into a joint venture agreement with the State Government of Odisha to establish the hotel Nilachal Ashok under the joint venture company Utkal Ashok Hotel Corporation Limited in 1986. According to the petitioners, they were paid their salary whenever there is revision of scale of pay of the State Government employees. The employees of Hotel Nilachal Ashok were being paid the salary as per the rules and regulations of the State Government being a Public Sector Undertaking following the resolution passed in 21st Board Meeting of Utkal Ashok Hotel Corporation. In 4 2011, there was an offer for voluntary retirement as Hotel Nilachal Ashok wanted to change the management with M/s.Paulmech Infrastructure Private Limited by notice dated 22.01.2011. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted offer for their voluntary retirement as per the guidelines. The proposals for voluntary retirement of the petitioners were accepted and they were relieved. But on the date of their relieve, the petitioners were handed over cheque towards VRS amount. The petitioners were not paid the 100% exgratia compensation @ 30 days per month although they were entitled to such payment. According to the guide
Orissa High Court Executive Engineer vs Chairman on 30 July, 2025 W.P.(C) No.12786 of 2018 Executive Engineer, .... Petitioners (Electrical), City Distribution DivisionI, Cuttack & another None versus Chairman, Permanent Lok .... Opposite Parties Adalat (PSU), Cuttack & another None ORDER 30.07.2025 Order No. 03. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Though the matter has been listed under the heading "For Referral to the Special Mediation Drive Mediation For the Nation", learned Counsel for the parties are absent on call. 3. Notice on the Opposite Party No.2 is yet to be held to be sufficient. In absence of the contesting Opposite Party No.2, the Mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties is not possible. 4. Accordingly, the matter be listed in the week commencing from 18th August, 2025 before the Regular Bench having assignment. 5. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till the next date. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed (S. K. MISHRA) Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN Reason: Authentication JUDGE Mona High Court of Orissa Location: Date: 01Aug2025 10:54:35
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the complaint was filed on 8.1.2018 and applicant was summoned on 23.10.2019, considerable time has already lapsed but the case is still pending for trial. The only prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants to expeditious disposal of this case pending in the trial court as per provision of sub section 3 of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which is quoted below: "(3) Every trial under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint." Considering the facts of the case, perused the material available on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is finally disposed of with a direction to the court below to decide the aforesaid case in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to ei
Orissa High Court M/S Gayatri Agency vs Micro And Small Enterprise .... ... on 27 March, 2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07Apr2025 15:00:16 W.P.(C) No.28880 of 2024 M/s Gayatri Agency, Khurda .... Petitioner(s) Represented By Mr. Satya Smruti Mohanty, Adv. versus Micro and Small Enterprise .... Opposite Party(s) Facilitation Council, Cuttack & Ors. Represented By Mr. Bibhu Prasad Mohanty (for MSMEC) DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order ORDER No. 27.03.2025 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as ''MSEFC') in MSEFC Case No.30 of 2023 dismissing the case of the Petitioner stating that it has no jurisdiction. The said order is arbitrary and against the provision of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "MSMED Act") 3. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the materials placed on record. Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07Apr2025 15:00:16 4. The brief facts of the case, as outlined in the Writ Petition, are that the Petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in Electrical Engineering for HT & LT line off Construction, Erection, and Transmission of line duly registered as a Small Scale Enterprises in the State of Odisha. It is a service provider within the meaning of Section 2 (n) of the MSMED, Act having Udyam Aadhar Number (UAM) UDYAMOD 070001962 and Udyam Aadhar Memorandum (UAM) UDYAM07E0009355. 5. During the course of business activities, the Petitioner was awarded with a work order for Rs.1,51,65,395.00 (One Crore FiftyOne Lacs Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred NinetyFive Only) vide No.TCPL/C/WO/Proj/3600 dated 17.04.2019 and, subsequent, amendment order vide No.TCPL/C/W0/Proj/3600AA dated 23.05.2019 for Construction of 5.7 K.M. 33KV line from Choudwar SubStation to the Factory of Toshali Cements Private Limited/ Opposite Party No. 2, at in village Indranipatna, Tangi Choudwar Tahasil, Cuttack District, Odisha. 6. As per the work order, the Petitioner duly supplied and executed the works as specified in the work order issued by the Opposite Party No.2. But, some portion of the work remained incomplete due to failure on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 in obtaining NHAI clearance for conductor stringing across Kalinga Chhak market portion. In the meantime, the Petitioner raised running bills against each of the completed portions of work and got the entire payment except 10% retention amount of Rs.16,02,409.00 (Sixteen Lacs Two Thousand Four Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location
2. UID No. :DLNW030021382019 3. Under Section :372 INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT 4. Date of Institution :27.08.2019 5. Date of Final Order :16.01.2020 6. Final Order :Petition allowed BRIEF FACTS 1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the petition filed under section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for obtaining succession certificate in respect of debts/securities etc of Late Suraj Mal Vijayvergi s/o. Late Kalyan Mal Vijay Vergi (deceased). 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the present petition are that deceased Late Suraj Mal Vijayvergi was the father of petitioner & respondents no. 3 & 4. He had expired on 11.05.2019. It is submitted that at the time of his death he was residing at House no. 251, Pocket­C­8, Sector­8, Rohini, Delhi­110 085. It is further stated that mother namely Kusum Lata Vijay Vergi of the petitioner had expired on 24.05.2015 i.e. prior to death of deceased Late Suraj Mal Vijayvergi. The deceased had left behind the petitioner and respondent no.3 & 4/sons only as his legal heir. 3. The present petition has been filed for grant of succession certificate in respect of following debts and securities of deceased, who SCC. No. 131/19 Satya Narayan Vijayvergi Vs. State & Ors. . Page no.9 was having account with following bank/branch : BANK ACCOUNT : SL. NO. ACCOUNT NO. NAME OF THE BANK 1. 132471000020872 HDFC BANK, 27, NORTH WEST AVENUE ROAD, WEST PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI 2. 50100116632944 HDFC BANK, 27, NORTH WEST AVENUE ROAD, WEST PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI SHARES : SL. NO. NAME OF COMPANY ISIN NO. NO. OF SHARES 1. Allahabad Bank EQ INE428AD01015 300 2. Andhra Bank EQ INE434A01013 500 3. Bank of Baroda EQ INE028A01039 201 New FV Rs. 2/­ 4. Bank of Maharastra EQ INE457A01014 100 5. Canara Bank EQ INE476A01014 375 6. Central Bank of India EQ INE483A01010 120 7. HDFC Bank Ltd. INE040A01026 500 EQ New Rs. 2/­ 8. Howard Hotels Ltd. EQ INE931B01016 200 9 Indian Overseas Bank EQ INE565A01014 100 10. NTPC Ltd. EQ INE733E01010 160 SCC. No. 131/19 Satya Narayan Vijayvergi Vs. State & Ors. . Page no.9 11. NTPC Ltd. INE733E07JP6 134 SR­54, 8.49 NCD 25MR25 FVRS 12/5 12. Oriental Bank of INE141A01014 100 Commerce EQ 13. Petronet LNG Ltd. EQ INE347G01014 200 14. Punjab National Bank INE160A01022 500 EQ New FV Rs.2/­ 15. State Bank of India INE062A01020 150 EQ New Rs.1/­ 1
1. THE SUBREGISTRAR, JOINTI the SubRegistrar Office, Tenkasi. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028. 3. GREAT LAKES MULTI STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Sakthivel, Having registered office at: No. 76/190, South Car Street, Srivilliputhur, Tamil Nadu – 626125. 4. SELVARAJ S/o Thambiran Old Door No.3, New Door No.49, 1/49 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 12:15:01 pm ) W.A (MD) No. 462 of 2025 Utchimahali Amman Kovil 1st Street, Keelappuliyur, Tankasi Taluk, Tirunelveli. 5. R.PANKAJAM, W/o. Late Ramasamy Reddier, No.440A, Neelpadai, RadhanallurRailyway Quarters, Athipulliyur, Keelvelur Taluk, Nagapatinam. 6. P.PAKKRISAMY, No.1295, 715, Muthazhagi Amman Kovil Street, Shencottai 627 809. 7. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY INDIA LTD (ARCIL) The Ruby, 10th Floor, SenapatiBapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 028. 8. THE SUBREGISTRAR The SubRegistrar Office, Alandur 12 Ist Main Road, Nanganallur CoOperative Society Lt, Nanganallur, Chennai600061. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order of this Court in WP (MD) No. 17123 of 2024 dated 24.10.2024 For Appellant : Mr. Murali Kumaran, Senior Counsel, Assisted by A. Ashwin Kumar, Advocate. For Respondents: M/s. R. Suresh Kumar, Addl. Govt Pleader for R1, R2 and R8. Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior Counsel 2/49 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 12:15:01 pm ) W.A (MD) No. 462 of 2025 for M/s.S.Vidyasagar for R3 Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel for M/s.S.Kumar for R4 Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Keerthikiran Murali for R5 Mr. Manishankar, Senior Counsel For M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates for R7 for R5 No appearance. JUDGEMENT (Judgement of the Court was delivered by J.NISHA BANU, J.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the Order made in W.P (MD) No. 17123 of 2024 dated 24.10.2024. 2. The Appellant filed Writ Petition in No. 17123 of 2024, challenging the registration of the sale deed dated 31.08.2012 registered as document No. 853 of 2013 on th
THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Deeptanshu Shukla advocate for the petitioner. Dr. Shri Amit Bhatia G.A. appearing on behalf of Advocate General. Shri Nikhil Basantani, advocate for respondent No.2. ORDER Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 1] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the husband and minor son of the respondent No.2, against the order dated 31/01/2025, passed by the respondent No.1, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rau Area, Collectorate, Indore, whereby a search warrant under Section 97 of Cr.P.C./ S.100 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been issued at the instance of the respondent No.2/wife of petitioner No.1 for recovery of her son, the petitioner No.2. 2] In the present case, this Court had also tried to explore the possibilities of amicable settlement between the parties, and even the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 19052025 18:50:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHCIND:12771 2 custody of the child was handed over to the respondent no.2 for a brief period of time, which she already restored to the petitioner no.1, however, the efforts have failed, and thus, the matter is heard finally. 3] Despite such failure of the settlement, Shri Nikhil Basantani, learned counsel for respondent No.2, at the outset, has submitted that the petitioner No.2 Ashish Jain may be allowed in the custody of respondent No.2 for some more days so that some progress can be made towards settlement, and for which, the respondent No.2 is also ready to reside in her flat at Kota, which she jointly owns with her husband, the petitioner No.1. However, Shri Deeptanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.2 has also filed an FIR u/s.498A of IPC and as such the criminal proceedings have already been initiated against the petitioner No.1 and his family members and in the circumstances, such settlement is not possible. 4] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are the husband and wife whose marriage was solemnized on 26/06/2011, and out of this wedlock, they also have a son Ashish, the petitioner No.2, who is around 10 years old. Both the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are qualified software engineers. However, a dispute has arisen between them, as a result of which, respondent No.2 left her house at Kota (Rajasthan) and has come to Indore to her parents' house, as a result of which, petitioner No.1 has also filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights at Kota (Rajasthan) on 17/05/2024, and subsequent to that, respondent No.2 has also lodged an FIR at Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 19052025 18:50:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHCIND:12771 3 Crime No.288/2024 under Section 498A
Delhi High Court Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs Ircon International Limited on 13 April, 2021 Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 501 $~1 * + ARB.P. 422/2020 PATIL RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ishan Sanghi, Adv. versus IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ..... Respondent Through HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR O R D E R(ORAL) % 13.04.2021 (videoconferencing) C. HARI SHANKAR. J. ARB.P. 422/2020 1. By this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act"), the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. 2. The dispute arises out of a Supply Contract Agreement dated 14th May, 2012, which also contains General Conditions of Contract (GCC) and Special Conditions of Contract (SCC). Clause 36 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) provides for settlement of the disputes by arbitration, which read thus: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 422/2020 Page 1 of 6 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:16.04.2021 15:28:57 "36.0 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES 36.1 All disputes or differences of any kind whatsoever that may arise between the Employer/Engineer and the supplier in connection with or arising out of the contract or subject matter thereof or the execution of works, whether during the progress of works or after their completion, whether before or after determination of contract shall be settled as under: 36.2 Mutual Settlement All such disputes or differences shall in the first place be referred by the supplier to the Employer in writing for resolving the same through mutual discussions, negotiations, deliberation etc. associating representatives from both the sides and concerted efforts shall be made for reaching amicable settlement of disputes or differences. 36.3 Conciliation/Arbitration 36.3.1 It is a term of this Contract that Conciliation/Arbitration of disputes shall not be commenced unless an attempt has first been made by the parties to settle such disputes through mutual settlement. 36.3.2 If the supplier is not satisfied with the settlement by the Employer on any matter in question, disputes or differences, the supplier may refer to the Managing Director of the Employer in writing to settle such disputes or differences through Conciliation or Arbitration provided that the demand for Conciliation or arbitration shall specify the matters, which are in question or subject of the disputes or differences as also the amount of claim, item wise. Only such dispute(s) or difference(s) in respect of which the demand has been made, together with counter claims of the employer shall be referred to Conciliator or Arbitrator as the case may be and other matters shall not be included in the reference.