abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
The Director Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv. Ms. Bhawani .... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the Opposite party February 05, 2026 [SR] Item No.5 This revisional application is directed against an order dated November 18, 2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Other Execution Case No. 01 of 2025. It appears that the petitioner is covered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short, MSMED Act). It appears that he had rendered certain services/supplied goods to the respondents. Dispute arose regarding payment in regard thereto. Arbitration was held. An award in the sum of Rs. 26,44,574/ was passed in favour of the petitioner. I am told that the award has been challenged by way of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the respondent herein. However, there is no order of stay of operation of the award. The petitioner put the award in execution by filing Other Execution No. 01 of 2025. The learned executing Court allowed the execution application by directing payment of the principal sum and interest calculated only from the date of the award i.e. October 10, 2024. According to the learned Trial Court, section 16 of the MSMED Act provides that the interest has to be awarded from the date of the award. The aforesaid interpretation or understanding of Section 16 of the MSME Act is incorrect. Section 16 reads as follows: "16. Date from which and rate at which interest is payable.Where any buyer fails to make payment of the amount to the supplier, as required under section 15, the buyer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement between the buyer and the supplier or in any law for the time being in force, be liable to pay compound interest with monthly rests to the supplier on that amount from the appointed day or, as the case may be, from the date immediately following the date agreed upon, at three times of the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank." "Appointed day" appearing in Section 16 has been defined in Section 2 (b) of the MSMED Act. Hence, the order under review suffers from a patent irregularity/illegality warranting interference. The order is set aside. The learned executing Court is directed to decide the execution application afresh, in accordance with law, after affording full opportunity to the parties to file pleadings and after granting an opportunity of hearing. Needless to say, since the execution application has been resurrected by reason of this order, all documents filed by the parties before the executing Court hitherto shall also be considered by the learned Court. CO/11/2026 is disposed of accordingly. Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Arijit Banerjee, J. )
673 , it is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovery from pensionary dues could not be made after more than six months from the date of retirement and in the present case the petitioner stood retired in the the year 2010 but the impugned PPO ordering recovery has been issued in the year 2014. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has defended the recovery sought to the made from the petitioner but could not point out anything to counter the document Annexure P/5 wherein it has been categorically mentioned by the head of institution where by the petitioner was posted that various amount which are shown to be withdrawn as per record of AGMP but actually are not disbursed to the petitioner. 6. Heard. 7. It has been held by Division Bench of this Court by considering in detail the provisions of M.P. General Provident Funds Rule as well as provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules so also the fundamental Rules as applicable to Government Servants in M.P. that the recovery of negative balance pending in GPF cannot be made from pensionary dues after expiry of 6 months form the date of retirement. The Division Bench has held Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signi
DEORA WIRES N MACHINES PVT. LTD.....Respondent(s) Appearance: MR SP HASURKAR, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. BHADRISH S RAJU, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 10/04/2017 CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. Admit. As by order dated 27.03.2017 this Court has issued notice for final disposal, Shri B.S. Raju, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent. Page 1 of 14 HCNIC Page 1 of 14 Created On Tue Aug 15 07:58:40 IST 2017 C/AO/98/2017 CAV JUDGMENT 2.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Commercial Court, Vadodara dated 14.03.2017 passed below Exh.9 in Commercial C.M.A No. 113 of 2016, by which, the learned Commercial Court, Vadodara has partly allowed the said application submitted by the respondent herein ­ original respondent and has directed the appellant herein ­ original applicant to deposit 75% of the awarded amount including interest within one month, subject to the outcome of the application filed by the applicant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitration Act, 1996"), the original applicant has preferred present Appeal From Order. 3.0. The facts leading to the present Appeal From Order in nutshell are as under: 3.1. That the dispute arose between the parties which could not be resolved. Therefore, the respondent herein( hereinafter referred to as "original respondent") invoked the Arbitration clause contained in the contract / agreement and approached this Court by way of application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. That thereafter, the matter was referred to the learned Arbitral Tribunal consisting of retired Judge of this Court. That thereafter, the learned Arbitrator declared the award on dated 25.06.2016 in favour of original respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,38,64,606.89. 3.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, the appellant herein ­ original Page 2 of 14 HCNIC Pa
1] The Commissioner ] Medical Education and Ayush ] Maharashtra ] th 4 Floor, Government Dental College, ] & Hospital Building, St. George's ] Hospital Premises, P. D'Mello Road, ] Fort, Mumbai 400001 ] ] 2] The Director of Medical Education ] th 4 Floor, Government Dental College, ] & Hospital Building, St. George's ] Hospital Premises, P. D'Mello Road, ] Fort, Mumbai 400001 ] ] 3] The Secretary, State of Maharashtra ] Through Medical Education & Drugs ] Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ] ] 4] State of Maharashtra ] (Served through Government Pleader)] ] 5] HSCC (India) Limited ] A Company incorporated under the ] Provisions of Companies Act, ] LGC 1 of 34 ::: Uploaded on 15/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on 30/03/2024 16:05:43 ::: 2 WP2445.23&WP2921.24 13.03 .doc Having registered office at 205, ] Extend Plaza, Plot No.4 ] D.D.A. L.S.C. CentreII ] Vashudhara Enclave Delhi110096 ] Through Binod Kumar ] Dy. General Manager (Civil) ]..... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2921 OF 2024 1] Nashik Zilla Swayam Rojgar ] Berojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha's ] Mahasangh, Maryadit, Nashik ] Through its Authorized Signatory ] Kiran Hirama Aher ] Age 49 years, Occ : Business ] Resident of Namrata Enclave, ] Row House No.9, Canal Road, ] Gangapur Road, Anandwali, Nashik ] ] 2] Rayat Swayam Rojgar Seva Sahakari ] Sanstha Limited, Nashik ] Through its Authorized Signatory ] Shri Viraj Vijay Ingale ] Age : Major, Occ : Business, ] th Having address at 6 Shrirang ] Mangal Apartment, Shrirang ] Nagar, Pumping Station, ] Gangapur Nashik 422013 ] ] 3] Shivam Swayam Rojgar Seva ] Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Nasik ] Through its authorized signatory ] Shri Kiran Hiraman Aher ] Having address at Shivam Row ] Houses House No.8 Anand Nagar ] Happy Home Colony, Near Shri ] Krushna Hospital, Behind Ashoka ] LGC
1. Three C Visuals, Rep.by its Partner Mr.C.V. Ramesh HT, 1 and 2, Tiny Sector, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai 600032. 2. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region at Thiruvika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600032. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Page 1 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.321 of 2021, A.No.376 of 2021 and A.No.1656/2021 1996 to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 12/11/2019 passed by the learned Council to the extent it has awarded against the Petitioner and remit the case back to the Ld. Council to consider all the facts, pleadings and documents before it to pass new Award For Petitioner : Mr. P.H.Aravindh Pandian Senior Counsel for M/s. Surana & Surana For Respondents : Mr. R. Subramanian for M/s.G. Rojathi for R1 Mr. Edwin Prabhakar Addl. Government Pleader for R2 ORDER Challenge has been made to the Award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council dated 12.11.2019. 2. Brief facts leading to the Respondent herein to file the petition is as follows: 2.a. It is the contention of the 1st Respondent that he supplied goods to the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.80,18,273/. This amount is payable by the Petitioner as against the invoices. The Petitioner herein, who is Respondent before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region (hereinafter Page 2 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.321 of 2021, A.No.376 of 2021 and A.No.1656/2021 referred to as 'Council') took a stand in their counter that the 1 st Respondent engaged in certain unfair trade practices touching upon the integrity which worked against the business ethics and flawless reputation that the Petitioner has striven to build and hold for all these years. The Respondent in collusion with the Petitioner employee has escalated the purchase order for a higher rate than the prevailing, in doing so, unjustly enriched himself at the cost of Petitioner. Having found the conspiracy, the Petitioner herein terminated the services of employees who involved in the above practice. Only after finding the unfair trade practice committed by the Respondent, the payments were withheld. Hence, the matter has been referred to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region. It appears that conciliation meetings have been held on 28.01.2019, 18.02.2019 and 07.06.2019 and finally on 02.07.2019. After hearing both sides and analysed the materials placed befo
Raj Kumar Sahani & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Mr. Palak Kalra, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Advocates for R1. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Rana, Mr. Ajitesh Kumar and Mr. Shresth Garg, Advocates for R2. Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate for R3. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.256 & 257 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, CourtIV in I.A. No.4173/2023 and I.A. No.5458/2022 in CP (IB) No.983/ND/2020) IN THE MATTER OF: Bishwanath Traders & Investment Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ashish Singh, Resolution Professional of Vibrant Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Mr. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) Nos. 253254, 256257 & 442443 of 2024 1 Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Advocates for R2. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Mr. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta and Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocates for R3. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 442 & 443 of 2024 & I.A. No.2763, 2764 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, CourtIV in I.A. No.4173/2023 and I.A. No.5458/2022 in CP (IB) No.983/ND/2020) IN THE MATTER OF: Committee of Creditors of Vibrant Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Raj Kumar Sahani & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Rana, Mr. Ajitesh Kumar and Mr. Shresth Garg, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Advocates for R1. Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate for R3. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Mr. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rajshree Chaudhary and Ms. Diksha Dadu, Advocates for Interveners in I.A. No.2763/2024. JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These Appeal(s) by Resolution Professional ("RP") of M/s Vibrant Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.; the Committee of Creditors ("CoC") of Vibrant Buildwell Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) Nos. 253254, 256257 & 442443 of 2024 2 Pvt. Ltd. and Successful Resolution Applicant ("SRA") of the Corporate Debtor ("CD")has been filed against the same order dated 24.01.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, CourtIV in I.A. No.4173 of 2023 filed by Raj Kumar Sahani, Suspended Director and Shareholder of the CD and IA No.5458 of 2022 filed by RP for approval of Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order allowed IA No.4173 of 2023 accepting the objection raised by
Course Ring Road, Rajkot360 Colony, Rajkot360 001 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADRPT 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. No. 01&02/RJT/2023 (a/o ITA No.134 & 135/Rjt/2023) (िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: (200708 & 200809) Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai The Income Tax Officer, Ward Thavrani, 4 Parsana Nagar, Shri 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, 5th Floor, Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Room No. 517, Race Course Ring Colony, Rajkot360 001 Vs. Road, Rajkot360001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADRPT 5807 E (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 16/RJT/2019 (िनधारणवष / Assessment Year: (201011) Damjibhai Lekharj Tharvani Income Tax Officer, Ward C/o. Sarda & Sarda, CAs, 1st Floor, 1(2)(4), Aaykar Bhavan, 5th Vs. Floor, Room No. 506, Race "Sakar" Opp. Rajkumar College, Dr. Course Ring Road, Rajkot Radhakrishnan Road, Rajkot360 001 1 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI Rajkot 360001 360 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 31,32,33/RJT/2019 (िनधारण वष / Assessment Year: (200910 to 201112) Incometax Officer, Ward2, Shree Damjibhai Lekhraj Thavrani, Junagadh Incometax Office, 302Sai Darsan Apartment, Bhutnath Chambers, Opp. Vs. Adarshnagar2, Joshipura, Bahauddin College, College Junagadh362 001 Road, Junagadh 362 001 थायीलेखास.ं /जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. No. 02 to 04/RJT/2019 (a/o ITA Nos.31 to 33/RJT/2019) (िनधारण वष / Assessment Years: (200910 to 201112) Shree Damjibhai Lekhraj Thavrani, Incometax Officer, Ward2, 302Sai Darsan Apartment, Junagadh Incometax Office, Adarshnagar2, Joshipura, Bhutnath Chambers, Opp. Junagadh362 001 Vs. Bahauddin College, College Road, Junagadh 362 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No. 171/RJT/2015 (िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: (200607) Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Asstt. Commissioner of Bhatiya 301, UVI Palace, Vs. Income Tax Central Circle Wing 1, Opp. Gitanjali 1, Rajkot College, Sadhu Vasvani 2 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI Road, Rajkot थायी ले खा सं /.जीआइ आर सं / .PAN/GIR No.: AIRPB 2097 F (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./IT(SS)A No. 01 to 06 /Rjt/2018 (िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: (200708 to 201213) Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Asstt. Commissioner of Bhatiya Income Tax Central Circle Vs. 1, Rajkot 301, UVI Palace, Wing 1, Opp. Gitanjali College, Sadhu Vasvani Road, Rajkot 360 001 थायी ले खा सं /.जी आइ आर सं /.PAN/GIR No.: AIRPB 2097 F (अपीलाथ /Appella
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Raipur South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 23 February, 2023 आयकर अपील य अ धकरण यायपीठ रायपरु म। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA/CO No. Name of Appellant Name of Asst. Year No. Respondent 13. 176/RPR/2008 The Assistant South Eastern 19981999 177/RPR/2008 Commissioner of Coalfields Ltd., 19992000 178/RPR/2008 Income Tax, Seepat Road, 20002001 Circle1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) Bilaspur PAN: AADCS2066E 46. CO South Eastern The Assistant 19981999 14/RPR/2019 Coalfields Ltd., Commissioner of 19992000 15/RPR/2019 Seepat Road, Income Tax, 20002001 16/RPR/2019 Bilaspur (C.G.) Circle1(1), PAN: AADCS2066E Bilaspur 710. 180/RPR/2008 The Assistant South Eastern 200102 182/RPR/2008 Commissioner of Coalfields Ltd., 200203 183/RPR/2008 Income Tax, Seepat Road, 200405 184/RPR/2008 Circle1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) 200405 Bilaspur PAN: AADCS2066E 1114. CO South Eastern The Assistant 200102 17/RPR/2019 Coalfields Ltd., Commissioner of 200203 18/RPR/2019 Seepat Road, Income Tax, 200405 19/RPR/2019 Bilaspur (C.G.) Circle1(1), 200405 20/RPR/2019 PAN: AADCS2066E Bilaspur 1516. 185/RPR/2008 The Addl. South Eastern 200506 186/RPR/2008 Commissioner of Coalfields Ltd., 200607 Income Tax, Range Seepat Road, 1, Bilaspur (C.G.) Bilaspur PAN: AADCS2066E 2 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases 1718. CO South Eastern The Addl. 200506 21/RPR/2019 Coalfields Ltd., Commissioner of 200607 22/RPR/2019 Seepat Road, Income Tax, Range Bilaspur (C.G.) 1 Bilaspur PAN: AADCS2066E 19. 30/RPR/2010 The Joint South Eastern 200708 Commissioner of Coalfields Ltd., Income Tax, Range Seepat Road, 1, Bilaspur (C.G.) Bilaspur PAN: AADCS2066E 20. CO South Eastern The Joint 200708 23/RPR/2019 Coalfields Ltd., Commissioner of Seepat Road, Income Tax, Range Bilaspur (C.G.) 1, Bilaspur PAN: AADCS2066E Assessee by :S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/w Ankur Goel & Ankit Agrawal, CAs Revenue by :Shri Debashish Lahiri, CITDR सुनवाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 05.01.2023 घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 आदे श / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The captioned appeals filed by the revenue are directed against the respective orders passed by the CIT(Appeals), Bilaspur, which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Incometax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the 3 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases aforementioned assessment years. Also the assessee company is before us as a crossobjector for all the aforesaid years. As common issues are involved in the aforementioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. 2. We shall take up the appeal in ITA No.176/RPR/2008 for the assessment year 199899 as the lead matt
1. Devidayal and Mahindra Cable Industries Through its partners 896, Swarn Park, Mundka Industrial Area, Delhi 110041 2. Shivam Mehta Partners at Devidayal and Mahindra Cable Industries 896, Swarn Park, Mundka Industrial Area, Delhi 110041 3. Mahinder Mehta Partners at Devidayal and Mahindra Cable Industries 896, Swarn Park, Mundka Industrial Area, Delhi 110041 .... Defendants Date of Institution : 04.06.2022 Date on which arguments were concluded : 08.05.2025 Date of pronouncement of order : 23.05.2025 Present: Sh. Parvesh Bansal and Sh. Rahul Bansal, Ld. Counsels for plaintiff. Sh. Tarun Kashyap, Ld. Counsel for defendants. CS (COMM) No.: 312/22 Page No. 1/15 KDI Power Pvt Ltd Vs. Devidayal and Mahindra Cable Industries Digitally signed by UMED UMED SINGH Date: SINGH 2025.05.23 16:50:24 +0530 ~2~ Order 1. This order shall decide leave to defend application. 2. Before embarking on application, let us go through the plaint. The plaintiff, a company, claims to be leading manufacturer/ supplier of high performance aluminum wires, insulated wires and cable. It has authorised Mr. Kanhiya Lal to file case against defendant no. 1, a partnership firm of which defendant nos. 2 and 3 are active partners and they are responsible for its day to day affairs. The defendant no. 1 is in manufacturing and trading of insulated cables and wires. The defendants approached it in 2019 for purchase of aluminum wires and cables. They used to place order verbally which used to be complied with against invoices. Each and every supply was accepted by the defendants without any reservation. For all transactions with the defendants, the plaintiff used to maintain a running ledger account. Last four delivery transactions were made as per following detail : Invoice no. Date of invoice Eway bill no. Amount GST58 09.12.2019 7111 0780 7077 Rs. 4,91,175/ GST60 10.12.2019 7611 0809 6637 Rs. 4,93,685/ GST68 20.12.2019 7011 0975 0354 Rs. 3,82,025/ GST69 20.12.2019 7311 0979 9541 Rs. 3,50,372/ Total Rs. 17,17,257/ CS (COMM) No.: 312/22 Page No. 2/15 KDI Power Pvt Ltd Vs. Devidayal and Mahindra Cable Industries Digitally signed by UMED UMED SINGH Date: SINGH 2025.05.23 16:50:30 +0530 ~3~ As per running ledger account, the outstanding amount is Rs. 14,07,871/ which the defendants were obliged to pay within 30 days of issuance of invoice. Defendants made payment in irregular manner and last payment of Rs. 4,68,061/ was made on 13.02.2020 by way of account transfer. The payment was not made on time and hence plaintiff claims interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of default and for outstanding amount, a legal notice dated 22.10.2021 was sent to defendants and despite receipt, they did not make the payment. 3. The first argument of learned counsel for defendants is that as per Order 37 rule 1 (2) CPC, the order applies to th