abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Universal Builders ... Original Respondent Mr. Prateek Pai a/w. Pratik Karande, for Applicant/Original Respondent in IAL23757 of 2024. Mr. Aditya Mehta a/w. Anuj Jhaveri and Mihir Modi i/b Mihir Modi, for Applicant. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. Reserved on : August 7, 2024 Pronounced on : August 27, 2024 JUDGEMENT : Background and Context: 1. This Interim Application has been filed by the Original Respondent, seeking a review or a recall of an order dated June 20, Page 1 of 31 August 27, 2024 ::: Uploaded on 27/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on 28/08/2024 10:28:23 ::: IAL237572024CARAPL17767202327082024.docx 20241 ("Subject Order") by which a Learned Sole Arbitrator was appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"), to adjudicate disputes and differences between the parties in connection with a Work Contract Agreement dated November 26, 2014 ("Agreement"). This Application has been filed after the commencement of the arbitration proceedings before the Learned Sole Arbitrator. The Original Respondents states that its participation in the preliminary meeting was without prejudice to its right to file and pursue this Application. 2. For convenience, in this judgement, the parties are referred to in their original capacities as set out in Commercial Arbitration Application (Lodging) No. 17767 of 2023 (" Arbitration Application"). The Arbitration Application came to be listed on various dates. An affidavit in reply dated January 16, 2024 ("Reply Affidavit") was filed by the Original Respondent. Eventually, the matter came to be listed on June 20, 2024, on which date, none appeared on behalf of the Original Respondent. On that date, after perusing the record including the Arbitration Application and the Reply Affidavit, and hearing the 1 The order appointing the Learned Sole Arbitrator was in fact, passed on June 25 2024, as is seen from the date on which the order was uploaded on this Court's website. However, the date typed on that order is erroneously and inadvertently set out as June 20, 2024. This is now corrected through an order of today's date speaking to the minutes of the order, on this Court's own motion. Page 2 of 31 August 27, 2024 Shraddha Talekar ::: Uploaded on 27/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on 28/08/2024 10:28:23 ::: IAL237572024CARAPL17767202327082024.docx Learned Counsel for the Original Applicant, liberty was granted to the Original Applicant to file a short note dealing with the objections that had been raised by
1.Lt. Col. Sasikumar (Retd.), Proprietor, Sasikumar Security Agency, Room No.4/223A, Kottavilai, Ananthamangalam, Panikulam, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu – 629 173. 2.The Director General (Resettlement), Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Directorate General of Resettlement, West Block – IV, R.K.Puram, New Delhi – 110 066. ... Respondents _______ Page 1 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.158 of 2020 Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 30.12.2019 made in W.P.No.34305 of 2019. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan For Respondents : Mr.P.J.Rishikesh for respondent No.1 JUDGMENT The Hon'ble Chief Justice This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant Indian Oil Corporation questioning the impugned judgment dated 30.12.2019, whereby a learned Single Judge, in a matter of contract relating to security services being engaged by the appellant Corporation, has allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent petitioner holding that the preclosure of the contract was invalid and contrary to law. The learned Single Judge has, accordingly, directed that the appellant Corporation should adhere to the agreement dated 24.7.2019 and retain the services of the first respondent petitioner for the entire period of the agreement. _______ Page 2 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.158 of 2020 2. The appeal was filed earlier, but it took some time for being taken up for admission and on 13.7.2020, we heard learned counsel for the parties and passed the following order: “Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the first respondent / petitioner. 2. Primarily, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether in a matter of contract of employment, a writ petition could have been entertained, more so, in the wake of the fact that the very contract of employment also provides for an Arbitration clause. The learned Single Judge has proceeded to allow the writ petition and quashed the termination of the contract on the ground that no reasons have been assigned thereto. 3. Prima facie, we find from the terms of the
Delhi High Court Rakesh Kumar Tripathi vs Union Of India on 17 April, 2012 * % Judgment reserved on: 10.4.2012 Judgment pronounced on: 17.4.2012 + W.P.(C) 2251522518/2005 & CM No.1469214694/2005, 6787/2006, 7955/2006, 15087/2008 & 1536/2012 Indian Telecom Service Association & Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2221722257/2005 & CMs No.14646/2005, 14648/2005 Arun Gupta And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2225822463/2005 & CMs No.14652/2005 & 14655/2005 Mukesh Kumar Chauhan And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 22783/2005 S.K.Talware ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents W.P(C) 23093/2005 Page 1 of 26 + W.P.(C) 2278422788/2005 & CM No.16074/2005 Pushpender Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2278922847/2005 & CMs No.12817/2006, 13732/2006 & 14503/2006 Akhilesh Trivedi ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 23093/2005 Rakesh Kumar Tripathi ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2312423126/2005 Awadhesh K. Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents W.P(C) 23093/2005 Page 2 of 26 + W.P.(C) 23655/2005 Gajender Kumar Yadav ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1238012382/2006 & CMs No.9467/2006, 11074/2008 & 14543/2008 MTNL Executive Welfare Association ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Another ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 17618/2006 & CMs No. 1458814589/2006 & 170/2007 A.K.Sharma ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 3414/2007 & CM No.63966397/2007 Vinay Saran ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. VSR Krishna and Ms. Swati Sharma in WP(C) 2221522257/2005 Mr. Yasoban Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Srivastava, Mr. Ashish W.P(C) 23093/2005 Page 3 of 26 Sindhu and Mr. Arvind Tiwari in WP(C) 22789/2005 Mr. A.K.Srivastava and Mr. Ashish Sindhu in WP(C) 22783/2005, 22784/2005, 22789/2005, 23093/2005, 23124/2005 & 23655/2005 For Respondent : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. B.V.Niren, Mr Prasouk Jain, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma & Mr. Pratap for UoI Mr. Ravi Sikri with Mr. Vaibhav Kalra for MTNL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions are directed against the orders dated 21.10.2005 and 31.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No. 1963/2005 and other connected OAs. 2. Pursuant to its decision to set up a Public Sector
MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. WITH WRIT APPEAL No. 477 of 2024 GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO. LIMITED Versus MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Vivek Dalal learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Since the controversy involved in these cases is identical in Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 06092024 13:52:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHCIND:25449 2 WA4782024 & WA477/2024 nature, therefore, with the joint request of the parties, these appeals are finally heard and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of Writ Appeal No.478 of 2024 are being taken for disposal of both these writ appeals. 02. Appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated 09.01.2024, whereby the Writ Court has dismissed the Writ Petition No.30511 of 2023. 03. The writ petitioner/appellant is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the business of civil construction, mechanical and electrical work in all the major industries, building sector, infrastructure, sector in highways, railways, bridges/flyovers, water treatment etc. 04. The petitioner/appellant was awarded the work of construction of formation, bridges, buildings, two level crossings on existing tracks, supply of ballast along with associated signaling and general electrical works for the 3rd BG Railway Line between Barkheda (excluding) and Budhni (excluding) stations on Bhopal Itarsi section in Bhopal Division of West Central Railway by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited. The work order for execution of the aforesaid construction was issued on 11.07.2018. Respondent No.2 is also a construction company engaged in the erection of Preengineered buildings, civil construction, false ceilings, fireproofing, hot and cold insulation and roads. Respondent No.2, is a registered enterprise under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "MSME Act") 05. The petitioner/ appellant awarded a subcontract to respondent
ASSAM CARBON PRODUCTS LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Date : 3rd September, 2019. Appearance: Mr. Pritwiraj Sinha, Adv. Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Ms. Farnaz Nasim, Adv. Mr. S. Sen, Adv. ... for petitioner. The Court : The petitioner in this application has obtained an award under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 for Rs.17,60,319/ plus interest @ 3 times of Bank rate of RBI, compounded with monthly rest to the supplier unit under Section 16 of Chapter V of MSMED Act, 2006 against the respondent. The respondent has already challenged the said award by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(in short "the Act of 1996") before the Court of learned 7th Additional District Judge at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas. The respondent has also deposited 75% of the awarded amount with appropriate department with relevant department of the Alipore Court. The application filed by 2 the present respondent before the Learned 7th Additional District Judge at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(in short "the Act of 1996") is pending disposal. Since the respondent has already deposited 75% of the awarded amount the petitioner at the present moment cannot proceed with the execution application for realizing the entire awarded amount. Accordingly, the hearing of this application is adjourned for a period of eight weeks. In the meantime, the parties will approach the learned 7th Additional District Judge at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas for disposal of the application filed by the present respondent under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. (ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J.) mg
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Respondent No. 1, Foulk's Compound, Anaimedu, Salem 626 001. AND (i) Service Tax Appeal No. 164/2011 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 06/2010 (Commissioner) dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) (ii) Service Tax Appeal No. 40524/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 11/2013 dated 20.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) (iii) Service Tax Appeal No.40525/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 14/2013 dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) 2 (iv) Service Tax Appeal No.42545/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 11/2014 dated 20.6.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Appellant No. 1, Foulk's Compound, Anaimedu, Salem 626 001. Vs. M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd. Respondent (formerly RPP Constructions Pvt. Ltd.) S.F. No. 454, Raghupathynaiken Palayam Poondurai Road, Railway Colony, Erode, Salem 600 032. APPEARANCE: Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate for the AppellantAssessee Shri P.R.V. Ramanan, Special Counsel & Shri M. Ambe, DC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order Nos. 4056440575/2024 Date of Hearing : 05.03.2024 Date of Decision: 30.05.2024 Per M. Ajit Kumar, These appeals filed by the Rival Parties involve common issues and hence they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd., (RPP) are providers of taxable service and are registered with the Department for providing service under the categories of: (i) Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) (ii) Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service (ECIS) (iii) Interior Decorator Service, and (iv) Construction of Residential Complex Service There are 8 appeals filed by the assessee i.e. M/s RPP and 4 departmental appeals being disposed off through this common order. The demands have been raised under 9 categories of services against which both RPP and the department are in appeal before this Tribunal. Since a large number of individual projects are involved in all the appeals put together, its proposed to group the projects service wise for ease of discussion and decision on the legal issues involved. 3 2. The index of issues discussed is given in
Delhi High Court Surya Food & Agro Ltd vs Om Traders & Anr on 20 January, 2023 2023/DHC/000445 % Judgment delivered on: 20.01.2023 + RFA(OS)(COMM) 28/2019 SURYA FOOD AND AGRO LIMITED ..... Appellant versus OM TRADERS AND ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Advocate with Mr N. Mahabir, Mr P.C. Aryaa and Mr Noopur Biswas, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar Shandilya, Mr Apoorva Agrawal, Mr Abhishek Singh, Mr Hemant Sharma, Mr Adit Srivastava and Ms Shambhavi Singh, Advocates for R2. CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. The appellant has filed the present intra court appeal impugning a judgment dated 26.03.2019 (hereafter 'the impugned judgment') passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant's suit, CS(COMM) 10/2019 captioned Surya Food and Agro Limited v. Om Traders & Anr., was dismissed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal RFA(OS)(COMM) 28/2019 Page 1 of 37 Signing Date:21.01.2023 2023/DHC/000445 2. The appellant had filed the abovecaptioned suit alleging infringement of copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts and damages. The petitioner, inter alia, sought a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent (defendant) from selling, offering for sale any goods, advertising or promoting any product under the packaging, getup and/or trade dress of the defendant's product 'BUTTER KRUNCH' or any other packaging, getup and/or trade dress that is deceptively similar to the appellant's product 'BUTTER DELITE'. 3. The learned Single Judge declined the appellant's (plaintiff's) prayer for interim relief and at the next effective hearing, dismissed the suit as the Court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. Factual Context 4. The appellant, a company incorporated in the year 1992, is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of cookies, cakes, confectionaries juices and beverages. The appellant is the owner of several trademarks such as "Butter Bite", "Italiano", "Classic Crème", "Bourbon Crème", "CNC", "Snacks Zig Zag", "Puff Crème", "Cheese Cracker", "Cheez Bit", "Snakker", "Marie Lite Biscuits", "Oats Bite", "Butter Milk", "Crackle Coconut", "Choco Chekkers", "Jeera Top", Cashew, "Magic Cake", "Choco Gold", "Hungger", "Kickker", "coffito", "Toffito", "Treat" and "Fresh Gold". Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal RFA(OS)(COMM) 28/2019 Page 2 of 37 Signing Date:21.01.2023 2023/DHC/000445 5. Respondent no.1, Om Traders, is a retailer selling products of respondent no.3 (Raja Udyog Private Limited). 6. The appellant had filed a suit in respect of its product sold under the trademark "BUTTER DELITE". The appellant claimed that its product is highly successful, reputed, and wellknown in the market. It claimed that it commenced
1. Saviour Drugs Pvt Ltd C62, 12, Satyam Apartments, Sector5, CBD, Navi Mumbai400615. 2. Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt Ltd, Nahan Road, Kala Amb, Distt. Sirmour (H.P). .. Defendants This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, read with Sections 27,28 and 29, 134, 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 praying to a) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under it from in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations infringing plaintiff's registered trademark URSOCOL by use of an almost identical trademark URSOCO or any mark similar to Plaintiff's registered trademark URSOCOL; b) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their http://www.judis.nic.in 2 distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, legal representatives or any other person claiming under it from in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under the mark URSOCO or any other trademark that is identical and/or deceptively similar as that ot the plaintiff's mark URSOCOL so as to pass off the Defendant's medicinal preparations as and for the medicinal preparations of the Plaintiff or in any manner whatsoever; c) the Defendants be ordered to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ as liquidated damages for committing acts of infringement against Plaintiff's registered trademark so as to pass off its products as and for the Plaintiff's products; d) The Defendants be ordered and decreed to deliver up for destruction to the Plaintiff all the preparations, dies, blocks, labels, packaging either filled or empty, brochures, leaflets, pamphlets, hand bills, hoardings, wall posters, calendars, carry bags, stationery items and such other sales promotional materials bearing and/or containing the impugned trademark URSOCO; e) A preliminary decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff directing the Defendants to render accounts of profits made by it by use of the trademarks URSOCO which is identical and/or deceptively similar and a final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of profits found to have been made by the Defendant after the latter has rendered accounts; f) For costs of the entire proceedings, and; g) pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the cir