abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Gujarat State Pollution Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s) Date of hearing: 23.09.2022 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER Respondent: Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chintan Dave, Advocate for GPCB ORDER T T Introductory 1. The matter has been taken up for consideration of report of the joint Committee in pursuance of order of this Tribunal dated 18.01.2022, 1 registered as M.A. No. 46/2022. By the said order, the Tribunal dealt with O.A No. 05/2022 which was taken up suo motu in the light of media report1 titled "Gujarat: At least 06 dead, 20 sick after gas leak at industrial area in Surat". The report mentioned that deaths and injuries took place in the fire incident due to gas leakage from a tanker outside Sachin Industrial area, Surat, leading to suffocation of the workers. The matter was considered in light of report of the CPCB dated 17.01.2022 showing that the incident was a result of unscientific handling, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste in violation of Hazardous and other Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989, Environment Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "EPA 1986"), Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Water Act"), the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Air Act"). 2. The Tribunal noted the version in I.A. No. 08/2022 filed by Brackish Water Research Centre that liability for the incident in question was of Hikal Limited, a chemical manufacturer unit at Taloja MIDC Raigad, Maharashtra which sold the hazardous waste to Sangam Enviro Pvt. Ltd, a Vadodara based company in Gujarat. The sale was illegal as the buyer was neither "authorized user" nor "authorized disposal facility". Thus, both were to be held accountable for violations of statutory environmental norms. 3. Considering the above, the Tribunal constituted a joint Committee to ascertain the sequence of events, causes of failure and persons and authorities responsible therefor, extent of damage to life human and 1 Indian Express Daily, Dated 07.01.2022 2 nonhuman and the environment including, water, soil, air; steps to be taken for compensation of victims and restitution of the environment, and estimated cost involved for restoration; remedial measures to prevent recurrence, other incidental or allied issues found relevant, including handling of acidic effluents flowing in the drain in question. 4. The composition of the Committee was as follows: Justice B.C. Patel, former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court and former Judge of the Gujarat High Court presently stationed at Ahmedabad Chairman, Representative of MoEF&CC Member, Representative of CPCB Member, Secretary, Industries, Gujarat Member Gujarat State PCB Member State Disaster Manage
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through the Commissioner, S.P Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L.N Marg, New Delhi02 2. Director of Education Municipal Corporation of Delhi S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre J.L.N Marg, New Delhi02 ...Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Punam Singh ) 2 Item No. 36 (C5) O.A. No. 3701/2022 O R D E R (ORAL) In continuation of the earlier arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the offer of appointment issued by the respondents vide an order dated 18.03.2015. Under the heading "Conditions of Appointment," it is categorically mentioned that the candidates shall not be entitled to any benefits other than wages, such as bonuses, overtime, special allowances, medical allowances, or reimbursement of medical expenses, etc. The candidate shall be paid wages from the date of assumption of duty in accordance with the law. 2. The counsel further refers to the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 17.07.2018, which deals with the implementation of the 7th CPC's recommendations concerning the grant of Children Education Allowance (CEA) and related subsidies. He particularly highlights para K, which reads as follows: "K. If a Government servant dies while in service, the Children Education Allowance or hostel subsidy shall be admissible in respect of his/her children subject to observance other conditions for its grant provided the wife/husband of the deceased is not employed in service of the Central Govt., State Government, Autonomous body, PSU, Semi Government Organization such as Municipality, Port Trust Authority or any other organization partly or fully funded by the Central Govt./State Governments. In such cases the CEA Hostel Subsidy shall be payable to the children till such time the employee would have actually received the same, subject to the condition that other terms and condition are fulfilled. The payment shall be made by the office in which the Government servant was working prior to 3 Item No. 36 (C5) O.A. No. 3701/2022 his death and will be regulated by the other conditions, laid down in this OM." 3. He argues that para K clearly explains that Children Education Allowance is to be provided to the children of a deceased government employee if the spouse of the deceased is not employed in the service of the Central Government, State Government, Autonomous Body, PSU, Semi Government Companies, or other government organizations. He contends that this provision is relevant to the case, as the employee could have only received the allowance if the stated conditions were met. 4. The learned counsel also refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union Public Service Commission vs. Girish Jayantilal and Manjula and Ors., decided on 02.02.2006. He highlights para 16 of the judgment, which reads as follows: "16. There is no dispute that respondent No. 1 was engaged or hired on contract to work as Drugs Inspector for a period of six months from
Commissioner of Service Tax Respondent New Delhi Appearance: Mr. N.M. Sharma & Ms. V.Shruti Rao, Advocates for the Appellant Mr. Vijay Kumar, DR for the Respondent Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Jha, President Hon'ble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 23.9.2008 ORDER NO . ________________________ Per M. Veeraiyan (for the Bench): After hearing both sides, we waive the predeposit of the dues and with the consent of both the sides proceed to decide the appeal finally. 2. The appellant is a public sector undertaking and they were issued a show cause notice dated 4.3.05 proposing demand of service tax of around Rs.11 crores. The appellant filed a letter dated 22.4.05 raising preliminary objection to the show cause notice, stating that the procedure prescribed in the Boards circular No. 20/20/94CX dated 11.2.94 which envisage a discussion with officials of the concerned PSU and the Central Excise department with a view to resolve the dispute and to avoid issue of show cause notice has not been followed. However, no reply has been filed. The appellant appeared for personal hearing. It is claimed that they have raised the preliminary objection once again before the learned Commissioner. However, according to the appellant, the Commissioner has not considered the preliminary objection and also without awaiting for the reply from the appellant, decided the issue confirming the huge demand against them. 4. The instructions of the Board dated 10.2.94 is basically a guideline to explore the possibility of resolving the dispute even without issue of show cause notices. Failure to follow this procedure cannot held to be vitiate the show cause notice which has already been issued as provided for in the statute. However, we note that the Commissioner has decided without getting the reply from the appellant and confirmed huge demand. In the interest of justice, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the Commissioner and remand the matter for fresh consideration. The appellant is directed to file the reply along with evidence relied upon on or before 7.11.08. The Commissioner shall take into account the reply to be submitted by the party and also grant reasonable opportunity of hearing and decide the matter afresh. It is also clarified that if the appellant does not file reply by the due date, the Commissioner is free to decide the issue on the basis of available evidence. 5. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay application is also disposed of. (Dictated & pronounced in the open Court) ( Justice S.N. Jha ) President ( M. Veeraiyan ) Member(Technical) ss
Karnataka High Court M/S Bharath Conductors Pvt.Ltd vs Karnataka Micro And Small on 12 April, 2023 1 WP No. 12185 of 2018 C/W WP No. 12184 of 2018 DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 12185 OF 2018 (GMRES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 12184 OF 2018 (GMRES) IN W.P.NO.12185/2018: BETWEEN: M/s. BHARATH CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD., NO 116, 3RD PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU 560 058, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI T.C. BHANDARI. ...PETITIONER [BY SRI. M.A. HUMAYUN, ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. KARNATAKA MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL, BENGALURU, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.49, 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK, Digitally signed by KHANIJA BHAVAN, GURURAJ D RACE COURSE ROAD, Location: High Court BENGALURU 560 001. of Karnataka 2. M/s. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VIDYUTH BHAVAN, POTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. ...RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 & R2 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2017 PASSED IN CASE NO.05/2017 BY THE R1 (ANNEXUREB), DECLARE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW (MSMED ACT, 2006) AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND ETC., 2 WP No. 12185 of 2018 C/W WP No. 12184 of 2018 IN W.P.NO.12184/2018: BETWEEN: M/s. BHARATH CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD., NO 116, 3RD PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU 560 058, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI T.C. BHANDARI. AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, ...PETITIONER [BY SRI. M.A. HUMAYUN, ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. KARNATAKA MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL, BENGALURU, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.49, 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. M/s. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VIDYUTH BHAVAN, POTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PARTHA SARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGESH POOJARY Y., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PH); NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2017 PASSED IN CASE NO.04/2017 BY THE R1 (ANNEXUREB), DECLARE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW (MSMED ACT, 2006) AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 3 WP No. 12185 of 2018 C/W WP No. 12184 of 2018 ORDER Challenging impugned orders dated 13.12.2017 passed in Case nos. 4 and 5/2017 (AnnexureB) passed by respondent no.1 and seeking for declaration that impugned order was contrary to provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 'MSMED Act'), without following procedure under Section 18 of MSMED Act, etc., these writ petitions are filed. 2. Sri M.A. Humayun, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a small scale industry and respondent no.2 is Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. In pursuance of contract between parties, petitioner supplied ACSR'DOG' and 'WOLF' conductors to respondent no.
Bombay High Court Union Of India vs M/S. K. Amishkumar Trading Pvt.Ltd on 29 June, 2011 1 wpl12911.sxw dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 129 OF 2011 Union of India .... Petitioner vs 1 M/s. K. Amishkumar Trading Pvt.Ltd. 2 Settlement Commission ig .... Respondents Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the petitioner. Mr. V. Shreedharan with Mr. Prakash Shah, Mr. Sanjay Agarwal and Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/by M/s. PDS Legal for respondents. ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : June 29, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud,J.): Rule, by consent, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the Counsel and at their request, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2 The Union of India is in a challenge to the validity of an order passed by the Settlement Commission on the ground that a jurisdictional condition for the exercise of powers under Section 127B ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 17:24:50 ::: 2 wpl12911.sxw of the Customs Act, 1962 was not established. The Settlement Commission acting on an application filed by the First Respondent passed a final order on 21 December 2010. 3 A company by the name of Vinayaga Marine Petro Ltd., imported a consignment of 2044.17 metric tonnes of Prime nonalloy hot rolled steel coils from a consignor in Hongkong. The price of the goods under an invoice of 16 September 2008 was US $ 938 per metric tonne. An advance Bill of Entry was filed on 30 September 2008. The transaction between the consignee and the shipper was not completed and according to the First Respondent, the title to the goods remained with the shipper. The First Respondent claims that it negotiated with the shipper who then agreed to sell the goods at a value of US $ 442 per metric tonne. The IGM was allowed to be amended by the Assistant Commissioner and Bills of Entry dated 18 November 2008 and 5 December 2008 were filed. According to the First Respondent, the demurrage charges which were accumulated till the date of the execution of the contract (6 November 2008) were to be borne by it ; these being in the total sum of Rs. 1,00,03,752/. The Bills of Entry filed by the earlier consignee were cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Pending the finalisation of ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 17:24:50 ::: 3 wpl12911.sxw assessment, the imported goods were to be allowed to be released provisionally on the payment of duty on the basis of the higher transaction value of US $ 938 per metric tonne declared by the earlier consignee. 4 Initially, eighty per cent of the consignment against each Bill of Entry was allowed to be cleared. By a letter dated 23 February 2009, the First Respondent sought clearance of the balance pending finalisation of assessment and made a request for expediting the finalisation of the asse
Gshan Infrabuild Llp ...Respondent ... Mr. S. B. Joshi a/w Mr. M. D. Swami i/by J. P. Legal Associates, Advocates for Applicant Mr. H. S. Adwant h/f Mr. S. V. Adwant, Advocate for Respondent ... CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : JULY 25, 2024 PER COURT : 1. This application is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') for appointment of Arbitrator on the ground that the there exist dispute between parties, which is referable to the Arbitrator. 2. Applicant claims itself to be a private limited company and is in business of manufacturing and fabrication of steel, preengineered buildings, sheeting, purlin etc. Respondent is also a Private Limited Company having its factory at village Anantpur, Lasur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. Page 1 of 8 AA52024.odt It is further averred that the Respondent's factory unit was available for manufacturing and, therefore, Respondent approached Applicant with a proposal to enter into manufacturing agreement. Accordingly, parties have entered into manufacturing agreement dated 22.09.2021. As per the said agreement, Respondent has handed over the factory unit situated at Gut No. 69, village Anantpur, Lasur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar along with land, building plant and machinery for the use of Applicant for manufacturing of fabrication of steel. In the agreement, Respondents agreed to install fully operational machines such as, H Beam welding line (PTW Machine) at the time of actual handing over the plant, crane in 1 bay within two months from date of the agreement. It is claimed that it was also agreed that after actual handing over of the plant, Respondent shall install and commission CNC Drilling (subject to execution of 1000 tons order) and punching machine and CNC plasma PUG cutting machine within six months. It is alleged that Respondent did not install the agreed equipment and made additional demand of money. It is claimed that the Respondent has committed breach of the Page 2 of 8 AA52024.odt mandatory conditions of the agreement and as such, the dispute arose between them. It is further claimed that Applicant has approached to Respondent with the said dispute and for appointment of the arbitrator. For want of positive response, present application is filed. 3. Respondent by filing affidavitinreply opposed the contentions of the Applicant. Though dispute is not made with regard to the execution of agreement, but it is the contention of the Respondent that the Applicant has no cause of action to file application under the provisions of the Act. It is claimed that Applicant as well as Respondent are duly registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises development (MSMED) Act, 2006 (for short 'MSMED Act'), and in view of provisions of the MSMED Act, no arbitration can be held except before the facilitation council under the said Act and as such, provisions of the Act of 1996 are not applicable to the present case. 4. Learned Counsel for the
1 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4422/2023 2023 INSC 1056 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4422/2023 HARI BABU THOTA Appellant(s) VERSUS Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. Shree Aashraya InfraCon Limited went into CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [for short “the Code”] and the appellant before us was appointed as the Resolution Professional. The Resolution Professional presented a plan before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru as propounded by the promoters and approved by the Committee of Creditors [COC] but in terms of the order dated 28.02.2023, the application was dismissed on the ground that the promoters could not have presented the plan. It is the say of the appellant before us that this has far reaching consequences for him and his role as the Signature Not Verified Resolution Professional as: Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2023.12.07 16:11:24 IST Reason: a) the appellant is ineligible to continue as a Resolution Professional; 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4422/2023 b) the applicant is ineligible to be considered as Board is liquidator of the corporate debtor; c) the case of the appellant is required to be referred to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) for further action in accordance with law on the ground that the appellant had erred in putting up a plan that was not in consonance with law for consideration of the adjudicating authority. 2. Since there was really no representation on behalf of the other side, we appointed Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, learned counsel as Amicus in the matter. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/Resolution Professional and the learned Amicus not only because it would affect the professional abilities of the appellant but because certain issues required adjudication by us, more so, in view of the impugned order relying on an earlier order of the National Company Law Appellant Tribunal in Digamber Anand Rao Pingle v. Shrikant Madanlal Zawar & Ors.1 4. There are two aspects to be examined out of the contours of the submissions: Firstly: Whether the resolution applicant was disqualified under the primary conditions as specified under Section 29 A of the Code; and Secondly: Whether the corporate debtor not 1Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.4343A/2021 3 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4422/2023 having an MSME status at the time of commencement of CIRP proceedings would disqualify the Resolution applicant under Section 29A of
signed by SHRADDHA SHRADDHA KAMLESH 1) Micro And Small Enterprise Facilitation Council KAMLESH TALEKAR TALEKAR Date: 2025.09.30 Through Member Secretary 15:40:31 +0530 2) Sikco Engineering Services Through Proprietor Archana Sikder and Power Of Attorney Milton Sikder ...Respondents Mr. Rohan Savant a/w Rakesh Agrawal, Sandeep Nirban, Pallak Ranawat, for Petitioner. Mr. Satish Nikhar, for Respondents. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. Reserved on : August 26, 2025 Pronounced on : September 30, 2025 Judgment: Context and Background: 1. This Petition is a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), challenging an arbitral award dated December 30, 2022 ("Impugned Award") passed by the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, Page 1 of 18 September 30, 2025 ::: Uploaded on 30/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on 30/09/2025 21:47:27 ::: CARBPL113892023.docx 2006 ("MSMED Act"). 2. The Petitioner, Nexus Infratech ("Nexus") is itself an enterprise that would otherwise be a protectee of the MSMED Act. Nexus was awarded the work of installation, testing and commissioning of a 2300 KWP grid connected photovoltaic power plant at the Naval Station, Karanja, Uran. Nexus won the bid with the lowest quote at Rs. ~14.75 crores. The project was to be completed within nine months. A contract dated July 4, 2018 was executed between Nexus and the Chief Engineer, Military Engineering Services. 3. The Respondent, SIKCO Engineering Services Ltd. ("SESL") and Nexus entered into an agreement dated September 18, 2018 (" Agreement"), which was a backtoback contract for setting up the project. The work under the Agreement between the parties commenced on September 17, 2018 and the targeted date of completion was April 16, 2019. The purchase order from Nexus on SESL was for an amount of Rs. ~12.35 crores. 4. Nexus is said to have terminated the work order and purchase orders by a letter dated August 26, 2019 (" Termination Notice"), on the premise of noncompletion of work by SESL within the stipulated deadline. Page 2 of 18 September 30, 2025 Shraddha ::: Uploaded on 30/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on 30/09/2025 21:47:27 ::: CARBPL113892023.docx According to Nexus, a sum of Rs. ~8.08 crores has been paid. SESL acknowledges receipt of Rs. ~8.06 crores. The dispute between the parties relates to SESL's contention that its invoices for supplies made and work carried out have not been fully honoured by Nexus. 5. Disputes between the parties proceeded to the Facilitation Council and after conciliation failed, arbitration commenced. The Impugned Award zeroes in on three out of 22 invoices raised between January 12, 2019 and August 20, 2019, aggregating to Rs. ~11.66 crores, and holds that Rs. ~2.05 crores remains payable along with interest computed under the MSMED Act.