abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Delhi High Court Parveen Kumar Ajay Kumar & Sons vs Manoj Kumar on 11 January, 2023 2023/DHC/000229 $~5 * + RC.REV. 237/2022 & CM APPL. 43400/2022 PARVEEN KUMAR AJAY KUMAR & SONS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, Mr. Gaima Chauhan and Ms. Abhilasha, Advocates versus MANOJ KUMAR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Dua and Mr. Bharat Deep Singh, Advocates Reserved on: 20th December, 2022 % Date of Decision: 11th January, 2023. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA JUDGMENT MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J: 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner ('Tenant'), assailing the order dated 07.07.2022, passed by the Senior Civil Judge acting as the Rent Controller of East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ('Trial Court'), whereby the Respondent's ('Landlord') eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('DRC Act') has been allowed and an eviction order has been passed in favour of the Landlord qua shop No. 3 situated at ground floor Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS RC.REV. 237/2022 Page 1 of 15 Signing Date:13.01.2023 13:20:11 2023/DHC/000229 of Property No. 1263, Narain Market, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi ('tenanted premises/shop No. 3'). 2. The Tenant's application for leave to defend was allowed vide order dated 11.10.2013, accordingly, written statement was filed by the Tenant and thereafter, evidence was led by the parties. 3. The facts of the case as averred by the Landlord and relevant for deciding the present revision petition are as follows: 3.1. The eviction petition was instituted by the Respondent, owner and landlord, on the ground of bona fide requirement for expanding his shop and nonavailability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation. 3.2. The Respondent deposed that he is the owner and landlord of three shops in Property No. 1263, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi ('Property), shown in green, red and yellow colour in the site plan marked as EX. PW1/1. The tenanted premises are marked on the site plan in colour red. The shop from where the Landlord is carrying out his business is marked on the site plan in colour green (for ease of reference identified as 'shop No. 1') and the shop being used by the Petitioner as a godown is marked on the site plan in colour yellow (for ease of reference identified as 'shop No. 2'). 3.3. The Landlord deposed that he is carrying on a business of readymade garments under the name and style of M/s Rajesh Garments from the shop No. 1 and he uses the shop No. 2, which is located at the rear side of the property
1 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, State of Goa, Margao, Goa. 2 THE POLICE INSPECTOR, Economic Offences Cell, Panaji, Goa. 3 CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PVT. LTD., Through its Authorised representative, Harsh Shah, Having address at Chowgule house, Mormugao Harbour, Goa 403803. .... Respondents. Mr Parag Rao, Advocate along with Mr Ajay Menon and Mr Akhil Parrikar, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr Shailendra G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr Rizwan Merchant, Advocate along with Mr. Gaurish Agni, Mr. Ramiz Shaik, Mr. Nihal Kamat, Mr. Kishan Kavlekar and Mr. Harshil Gandhi, Advocates for respondent no 3. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 647 OF 2024FILING Pradip Mahatme, son of Shri. Prabhakar Mahatme, Aged around 72 years of age, married, Indian National, R/o. H. No. 8/65A, Near Telephone Exchange, Altinho, Panaji Goa. .... Petitioner. Versus 1 The Public Prosecutor State of Goa. Page 1 of 25 2nd September 2024 ::: Uploaded on 03/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on 03/09/2024 22:22:47 ::: WPCR651 AND 6472024F.DOC 2 The Police Inspector, Economic Offences Cell, Panaji Goa. 3 Chowgule and Company Pvt. Ltd., Through its Authorised representative, Harsh Shah, Having address at Chowgule house, Mormugao Harbour, Goa 403803. .... Respondents. Mr Shivan Desai, Advocate along with Mr Varun Bhandanker, Ms Maria Viegas and Ms Tahira Menezes, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Somnath Karpe, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr Rizwan Merchant, Advocate along with Mr. Gaurish Agni, Mr. Ramiz Shaik, Mr. Nihal Kamat, Mr. Kishan Kavlekar and Mr. Harshil Gandhi, Advocates for respondent no 3. Reserved on : 26th July 2024 Pronounced on : 2nd September 2024. JUDGMENT: 1. Both the petitions are taken together as issues raised are the same wherein respondents are also the same. 2. Rule. 3. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 4. Matters are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with consent of the parties. 5. Heard Mr Parag Rao, learned Advocate along with Mr Ajay Menon and Mr Akhil Parrikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr S. G. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor for the State in Criminal Writ Petition No.651/2024/F. Page 2 of 25 2nd September 2024 ::: Uploaded on 03/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on 03/09/2024 22:22:47 ::: WPCR651 AND 6472024F.DOC 6. Heard Mr Shivan Desai, learned counsel along with Mr Varun Bhandanker, Ms Maria Viegas and Ms Tahira Menezes, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Somnath Karpe, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State in Criminal Writ Petition No.647/2024/F. 7. Heard Mr Rizwan Merchant, learned Counsel along with Mr. Gaurish Agni, Mr. Ramiz Shaik, Mr. Nihal Kamat, Mr. Kishan Kavlekar and Mr. Harshil Gandhi, Advocates in both the petitions for respondent no 3. 8. The challenge in both these petitions is limited to the impugned order and more specifically permitting respondent no. 3 to file reply and thereafter to file rejoinder by the petitioners, to an application for anticipatory bail, while allowing an application for intervention. 9. Mr Rao and Mr Desai appearing for th
Madras High Court M/S. Subros Limited vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 1 March, 2019 1 DATED: 01.03.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Writ Petition No.5899 of 2019 & W.M.P.No.6737 of 2019 M/s. Subros Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, No.9/3 Gardia Towers, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017 .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Pondy Bazaar Assessment Circle, No.48 Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar Salai, Chennai 600 028 .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned rectification order, dated 29.01.2910 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. P.Sridharan For Respondents : Ms. G.Dhanamadhri, Govt. Advocate (Taxes) ORDER The writ petitioner challenges an order of rectification under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'Act') on the ground that the order traverses beyond the jurisdiction imposed under Section 84 of the Act and proceeds to revise the http://www.judis.nic.in assessment itself. 2 2. Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, at the stage of admission. 3. The impugned order relates to the period 201516. The petitioner had effected interstate sales of roof mounted air conditioning unit for driver cabs of diesel locomotives to Southern Railways without Cforms. The classification of the aforesaid goods was Commodity Code 2112 as per the petitioner and liability to Central Sales Tax had been discharged at the rate of 5% in terms of Entry 112 of Part B of Schedule 1 of the Act read with Section 8 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short 'CST Act'). 4. It appears that, while the annual return filed by the petitioner for the period 201516 contained the correct community code, in the monthly returns, instead of mentioning the Code as 2112, the petitioner had mentioned the same inadvertently as 304. 5. The assessment was taken up by the second respondent and completed on the basis of Cforms submitted by the petitioner in relation to a portion of the sales turnover. After due verification, the benefit of concessional rate of tax was granted by the respondents in http://www.judis.nic.in proportion to that turnover for which valid CForms had been 3 submitted. 6. While this is so, a notice dated 27.06.2018 seems to have been issued by the second respondent, in terms of Section 84 of the Act read with Section 9 (2) of the CST Act proposing revision of the original assessment. In fact, Section 84 of the Act does not provide for revision of assessment but only rectification of the same, where
2/30 SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Adv. for Appellants Revenue Mr. Narendra Kumar J. Jain, Adv. for Respondent Assessee 1. The AppellantsRevenue have filed this appeal u/s.260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raising purportedly certain substantial questions of law arising from the order of the ITAT, 'A' Bench, Bangalore, dated 19.09.2014 passed in M.P.No.31/Bang/2014 (in ITA No.1054/Bang/2011) for A.Y.200708. 2. The proposed substantial question of law framed in the Memorandum of appeal by the AppellantsRevenue is quoted below for ready reference: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that M/s. Celestial Date of Judgment 26062018 I.T.A.No.151/2015 Commissioner of Income TaxIII & Anr. Vs. M/s. Trilogy EBusiness Software India Private Ltd., 3/30 Labs Limited cannot be included as comparable for determining Arms Length Price which had rightly been included as comparable by Transfer Pricing Officer as all the ingredients were satisfied to consider as same as comparable in the case of assessee"? 3. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the AppellantsRevenue and the Respondentassessee, has given the following findings against Revenue with regard to various issues raised before it with regard to 'Transfer Pricing' and 'Transfer Pricing Adjustments' made by the concerned authorities below. We consider it appropriate to quote from the order of Tribunal rejecting the Misc.Application seeking a review before Tribunal as hereunder: "5. We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and are of the view that the miscellaneous petition is devoid of any merit whatsoever. In the case of Teva Pharma Private Ltd., the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Celestial Labs Ltd. is in the field of research and pharmaceutical products and was not Date of Judgment 26062018 I.T.A.No.151/2015 Commissioner of Income TaxIII & Anr. Vs. M/s. Trilogy EBusiness Software India Private Ltd., 4/30 comparable in the case of a company carrying on contract research. It is a diversified company which also provides software for discovery of new drugs owning the IPR for the drug. It also develops molecule to treat cancer using bioinformatics tools for which patenting process was also being pursued. 6. In the light of above features brought out in the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in
STATE OF GUJARAT Appearance: SCA NO.4730 OF 2019 MR. UCHIT N SHETH, LD. ADV. for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 Page 1 of 177 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 16:37:41 IST 2020 C/SCA/4730/2019 CAV JUDGMENT SCA NO.6125 OF 2019 MR. D.K. PUJ, LD. ADV. for the Petitioner (s) No.1 SCA NO.6118 OF 2019 MR. UCHIT SHEHT, LD .ADV. for the Petitioner(s) No.1 SCA NO.9105 OF 2019 MR. PARESH M. DAVE, LD.ADV. For the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 SCA NO.10018 OF 2019 MR. TUSHAR HEMANI, LD ADV. with MS. VAIBHAVI K. PARIKH, LD ADV. for the Petitioner(s) No.1 MR. KAMAL B. TRIVEDI, LD. ADV. GENERAL with MS. MAITHILI MEHTA, LD. AGP with MR. SOHAM JOSHI, LD. AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 in all the petitions. and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO Date : 23/12/2019 CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned writ applications are the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. We have been called upon to look into and interpret the provisions of Sections 129 and 130 respectively of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short "the CGST Act") amidst lot of hue and cry at the instance of the Page 2 of 177 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 16:37:41 IST 2020 C/SCA/4730/2019 CAV JUDGMENT writ applicants (dealers) redressing the grievance that the authorities concerned are invoking the power to confiscate the goods and the conveyance under Section 130 of the GST Act arbitrarily and without any application of mind. In such circumstances, we need to look into the two provisions and try to ascertain whether the two provisions overlap or are independent of each other. We take notice of the fact that both the provisions, i.e., Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act start with a nonostante clause. 3. For the sake of convenience, we treat the Special Civil Application No.4730 of 2019 as the lead matter. 4. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following reliefs; "(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside notice dated 1.3.2009 (annexed at Annexure A) issued by the learned Respondent No.2; (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the learned Respondent authorities to forthwith release goods with truck no.GJ07UU7250 by quashing and setting aside the detention notices/orders issue for such purpose (annexed at Annexure F); (C ) Pending notice, admission and final hearing of this petition, this Hon
Madras High Court M/S. M.M.Educational And Charitable ... vs The Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 31 October, 2023 W.P. No. 12936 of 2021 DATED : 31.10.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 12936 of 2021 and W.M.P. No. 13736 of 2021 M/s. M.M.Educational and Charitable Trust, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Trustee, M.Ramki, NH44, Thottilovanpatti, Nalli Post, Sathur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, Tamil Nadu – 626 205. … Petitioner vs 1. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region, Rep. by its Chairman, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. 2. M/s. Corporate Concepts Infra Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its K.Durai Kandasamy, Flat No. 18A, Vese Kay Manoor, Door No. 8/28, Gopalakrishna Road, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ... 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 relating to the impugned order dated 05.10.2020 made in MSEFC/CR/115/2019 passed by the First Respondent and quash the same and to direct the First Respondent to refer the claims of the Second Respondent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/9 W.P. No. 12936 of 2021 respectively, to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 (3) of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006. For Petitioner : Mr. V.R.Kamalanathan For Respondents : Mr. S.Yashwath (for R1) Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi (for R2) ORDER Heard Mr. V.R.Kamalanathan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.Yashwath, Learned Counsel for the First Respondent and Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi, 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/115/2019 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 the principal amount of Rs. 15,68,300/ from the Petitioner towards value of goods supplied with interest calculated in terms of that Act, in which an order dated 05.10.2020 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to that sum together with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9 W.P. No. 12936 of 2021 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 challenged 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 M/s. Indus Smelters Ltd. (Order dated 23.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 5934 of 2021), where after referring to t
Orissa High Court Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. General vs M/S. Adarsh Nobel Corporation Ltd. .... ... on 20 September, 2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25Sep2025 16:24:47 W.P.(C) No.30966 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. General .... Petitioner (s) Manager (Project), Paradip Refinery & Anr. versus M/s. Adarsh Nobel Corporation Ltd. .... Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Sunil J. Mathews, Adv. For Opp. Party (s) : Mr. Sidharth Shankar Padhy, Adv. DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:17.07.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:20.09.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred seeking setting aside of the award dated 10.07.2023, passed by the Facilitation Council, Cuttack in MSEFC Case No. 56 of 2022. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The Petitioner has filed the present Petition to correct a jurisdictional error committed by the MSEF Council, vide its Award dated 10.7.2023 Page 1 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25Sep2025 16:24:47 and has challenged the impugned order on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction by the Council. (j) The Petitioner awarded the work of "Provision of Additional VR Tank at Paradip Refinery" to the Opposite Party vide Letter of Award(LOA) dated 29.11.2017 for a contract value of Rs.20,86,26,058.50/, which was to be completed within a period of 18 months from the date of the LOA. (k) However, on 11.6.2018, the Opposite Party stopped work on the site. Despite multiple correspondence dated 29.6.2018, 23.7.2018 and 11.8.2018, work did not resume and thereafter it is alleged that the present Petitioner terminated the contract with the Opposite Party on 13.12.2018. (l) A word order was issued to another contractor on 9.4.2019 for completion of the balance work. (m) As the matter remained thus, the present Opposite Party obtained it's registration as an MSME on 28.1.2021. The following year, on 12.8.2022, the Opposite Party filed MSEFC Case No. 56 of 2022 under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 seeking Rs. 6,65,97,975/ towards principal amount and interest calculated up to 18.5.2022 for alleged illegal termination of the contract. (n) On 18.11.2022, the present Petitioner issued an email to block payments towards the Opposite Party on account of risk and cost recovery from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party filed an interim application for staying the operation of the email dated 18.11.2022 before the MSEFC. Page 2 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25Sep2025 16:24:47 (o) While the I.A. was pending, the new contractor com
Madras High Court M/S.Kulja Industries Limited vs Chief General Manager on 13 March, 2019 1 Dated : 13.03.2019 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR O.P. No.763 of 2013 M/s.Kulja Industries Limited Plot No.1 Industrial Estate Chambaghat Solan – 173213 Himachal Pradesh. .. Petitioner vs. 1.Chief General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) Southern Telecom Projects No.25 BSNL Towers Greenways Lane Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai – 600 028. 2.Mr.C.Periyasamy The Learned Arbitrator & The Principal Manager (CFA) BSNL Chennai Telephones No.3, Kushkumar Road Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the award dated 29.06.2013 made in Order No.GM/CHI/ARB/01/1213/29.06.2013, through which, the petitioner is aggrieved and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. http://www.judis.nic.in 2 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Siva Shanmugam For Respondents : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.S.Udayakumar for R1 R2Arbitrator. ORDER There is one petitioner and there are two respondents. 2. Instant 'Original Petition' (hereinafter 'OP' for brevity) has been filed under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' ('A & C Act' for brevity) assailing an 'arbitral award dated 29.06.2013' ('impugned award' for brevity) made by an 'Arbitral Tribunal' ('AT' for brevity) constituted by a sole Arbitrator. To be noted, sole Arbitrator, who constituted the AT has been arrayed as second respondent before me. Therefore, the contest is between the petitioner and the first respondent. 3. As far as AT is concerned, petitioner before me was the claimant and the contesting first respondent was the sole respondent. 4. To be noted, instant OP has been filed under Section 34 of A & C Act as mentioned supra. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 5. Section 34 in the scheme of A & C Act finds its slot under Chapter VII of A & C Act, which is captioned 'RECOURSE AGAINST ARBITRAL AWARD'. A perusal of Section 34 of A & C Act also reveals that recourse to Court against an arbitral award may be made by an 'application'. Also to be noted, the very caption to Section 34 of A & C Act reads 'Application for setting aside an arbitral award'. Be that as it may, such recourse against an arbitral award is being assigned the nomenclature 'Original Petition' in this Registry. Therefore, I shall refer to the instant proceedings as 'OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 6. Mr.S.Siva Shanmugam, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.S.Udayakumar, counsel on record for the contesting first respondent are before this Court.