abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4, Pune .... प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.338/PUN/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 201011 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4, Pune .... अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Vs. Principal Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Level 6 & 7, Tower VI, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune 411013 .... प्रत्यथी / Respondent PAN: AADCP7369P प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO No.43/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 201011 (out of ITA No.323/PUN/2015) Principal Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Level 6 & 7, Tower VI, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune 411013 ... प्रत्याक्षेऩक/ Cross objector PAN: AADCP7369P 2 ITA No.323/PUN/2015 ITA No.338/PUN/2015 CO No.43/PUN/2016 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4, Pune .... प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kamal Sawheney Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT सन ु वाई की तारीख / घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 06.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 29.11.2017 आदे श / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: The cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are against order of DCIT, Circle4, Pune, dated 29.01.2015 relating to assessment year 201011 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The assessee also filed Cross Objections against the appeal of Revenue. 2. In this bunch of appeals, cross appeals are filed by the assessee and the Revenue, and Cross Objections are filed by the assessee. The cross appeals and Cross Objections were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.323/PUN/2015 has raised the following grounds of appeal: On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law; 1. The Ld Assessing Officer ('AO') pursuant to the directions of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in rejecting the benchmarking approach adopted/contemporaneous documentation maintained by the appellant and thereby making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,82,90,976 to the income of the appellant by holding that the international transaction, pertaining to 3 ITA No.323/PUN/2015 ITA No.338/PUN/2015 CO No.43/PUN/2016 provision of IT enabled back office support services ("ITES Services or back office support services') to the associated enterprise ('AE') are not at arm's length under the Incometax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP/AO erred in modifying the benchmarking analysis, as conducted by the appellant using Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') for benchmarking its international transactions pertaining to provision of ITES services to the AE, and thereby modifying the set of comparables. In doing so, the Ld DRP/AO specifically erred in: a) Including the companies which are not functionally comparable to the ITES services rendered by the appellant in final set of comparables on an adhoc basis, thereby resorting to cherrypicking of compara
Delhi High Court Orders Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 4 September, 2023 $~ * + CS(COMM) 1146/2018 EICORE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. Debarshi Dutta, Ms. Manvi Adlakha, Mr. Avinash, Mr. Akshat Kaushik and Mr. Amrit Singh, Advocates. versus EEXPEDISE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bitika Sharma, Ms. Vrinda Pathak, Mr. Lakshay Kaushik and Ms. Palak Mittal, Advocates for D1 to D7 and D12 to D19. Mr. R.R. Jangu, Advocate for D10 and D11. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH ORDER % 04.09.2023 I.A. 13265/2018 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by Plaintiffs) 1. This is an application filed by the Plaintiffs inter alia seeking restraint against Defendants No. 1 to 19 and/or their agents, franchisees, partners etc. from infringing/offending or violating Plaintiffs No. 1 and 5's copyright in their original literary work 'HealthBuzz', Plaintiffs' confidential data, information and trade secrets. Interim injunction is also sought to restrain the Defendants from printing, publishing, reproducing, copying and plagiarizing or CS(COMM) 1146/2018 Page 1 of 23 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be reverified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 16:14:45 otherwise dealing in any manner whatsoever with the literary works of the Plaintiffs and from holding out as associates or affiliates, or in any manner connected with, any of the Plaintiffs' or their subsidiaries or associate companies; marketing, selling, using, giving on license, providing support services, carrying out any form of modification or development on the software 'HealthBuzz' and/or providing services in relation to 'HealthBuzz' to companies or entities that are already using the said software in any form or name and style, more particularly, under the name 'HealthIns'. Restraint is also sought against the Defendants from in any manner using any trademark, trade name, copyright, logo or any symbol identified with the Plaintiffs or soliciting the employees, directors, agents or associates of the Plaintiffs besides claim for damages etc. 2. Factual matrix to the extent necessary and relevant is that Plaintiff No. 1 is involved in business of providing software and other
New Delhi 2nd Floor, NBCC Tower, 15Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi PAN :AABCP7947F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No 2506/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 201213 ITA No.2507/Del/2016 Assessment period : 14.11.2023 ITA No 7474/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 201213 ITA No.7530/Del/2018 Assessment period : 09.01.2024 PTC India Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle19(2), 2nd Floor, NBCC Tower, New Delhi 15Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi PAN :AABCP7947F (Appellant) (Respondent) 2 ITA No. 809/Del/2015 & Ors. Assessee by S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Sanat Kapoor, Tarun Chanana, Sumit Lalchandani & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advs. Department by Shri P N Barnwal, CIT DR Date of hearing 27.03.2024 Date of pronouncement 27.05.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA: JUDICIAL MEMBER: These are appeals preferred by the assessee as well as the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as Ld. First Appellate Authority or 'the ld. FAA' for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under: ITA No. CIT(A) who Appeal No. & Date AO who passed Section of the passed the order of order of the the assessment IT Act under CIT(A) order & Date of which the AO order passed the order 2506/Del/2016 CIT(A)7, New 877/CIT(A) DCIT, Cir. 143(3) Delhi 7/Del/1415 19(1) & (2), New Delhi, date 29.02.2016 02.03.2015 2507/Del/2016 CIT(A)7, New 629/CIT(A) DCIT, Do Delhi 7/Del/1516, Cir.19(2), New Delhi. Date: date: 31.03.2016 18.01.2016 7474/Del/2017 Do 10603/401/CIT(A) DCIT, Cir. Do 7/Del/201617 date 19(2) New 04.10.2017 Delhi, date 3 ITA No. 809/Del/2015 & Ors. 16.12.2016 7530/Del/2018 CIT(A)38, 230/201718 Addl.CIT, Spl. Do New Delhi Range7, New date 26.09.2018 Delhi, date 31.12.2017 809/Del/2015 CIT(A)XVII, 115/1314 DCIT, Cir.14 Do Delhi (1), New Delhi, Date: 05.11.2014 date 31.12.2013 2690/Del/2016 CIT(A)7, New 877/CIT(A) DCIT, Do Delhi. 7/Del/1415 Cir.19(1) & (2), New Delhi date 29.02.2016 date: 02.03.2015 3120/Del/2016 CIT(A)7, New 629/CIT(A) DCIT, Do Delhi, 7/Del/1516 Cir.19(2), New Delhi. Date: date: 31.03.2016 18.01.2016 7432/Del/2017 CIT(A)7, New 10603/401/CIT(A) DCIT, Do Delhi, 7/Del/201617 Cir.19(2), New
Delhi High Court Pec Ltd vs M/S Badri Singh Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. And Anr on 4 August, 2025 $~ * % Judgment reserved on: 24.07.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 04.08.2025 + FAO (COMM) 192/2025, CM APPL. 44314/2025 (for stay), CM APPL. 44315/2025 (for delay) & CM APPL. 44316/2025 (for exemption) PEC LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sumit Jidani, Advocate. versus M/S BADRI SINGH VINIMAY PVT. LTD. AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Nemo. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. CM APPL. 44315/2025 (for delay) 1. By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Applicant/Appellant seeks condonation of delay of 81 days in filing the present appeal. 2. For the sufficient reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. 3. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 44316/2025 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application shall stand disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA FAO (COMM) 192/2025 Page 1 of 29 Signing Date:05.08.2025 19:41:30 FAO (COMM) 192/2025 & CM APPL. 44314/2025 (for stay) 1. The present Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961and Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 raises a challenge to the impugned Judgment dated 01.02.2025 passed by learned District Judge (Commercial Court01), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in ARBTN 3047/2018 titled as PEC Limited v. M/s Badri Singh Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, wherein the Arbitral Award dated 02.04.20182 has been upheld by the learned District Judge. PLEADINGS 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the crux of the present Appeal relates to Tender bearing No.PEC/PUL/DOM/TDR/XCVII/113, which was floated by the Appellant on 27.08.2011 herein for the purpose of lifting of various kinds of crops and lentils, including 100 Metric Tons4 of Canadianorigin Red Lentils, on the specific terms of "as is where is basis". It is the stated case of the Appellant that the said tender provided for lifting of the lentils on "as is where is basis" for the original quantity of 100 M.T., which was subsequently raised to 300 M.T. vide Approval Letter dated 09.09.2011. 3. Respondent No. 1 emerged as the highest bidder at a rate of Rs.25,500/ per M.T. As per the Tender terms, the material was to be lifted from the Appellant's godown at Kolkata on an "as is where is basis" within a stipulated period of 30 days. However, in their acceptance letter dated 09.08.2011, Respondent No. 1 clarified that 1 A&C Act 2 The Award 3 The tender 4 M.T. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA FAO (COMM) 192/2025 Page 2 of 29 Signing Date:05.08.2025 19:41:30 only "sound and good condition" cargo would be accepted.
Central Administrative Tribunal Delhi Abhay Kumar vs M/O Railways on 12 March, 2021 OA No.1547/2020 Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.1547/2020 This the 12th day of March, 2021 Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A) Abhay Kumar S/o Shri Baijnath, A101, Prateek Fedora, E11, Block D, Sector 61, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP201301 Applicant (Applicant in person) VERSUS 1. Divisional Railway Manager/P, DRM Ofice, Northern Railway State Entry Road, New Delhi110055 2. Union ol India, Through Secretary Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi110001 Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. SM Arif) ORDER (Oral) Justice. L. Narasimha Reddy: The applicant initially joined National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) as Engineer (Mechanical) on 04.08.2008. His services were confirmed in the grade of Rs.2490050500 w.e.f. 04.08.2020. Thereafter, the applicant responded to an advertisement for selection to post in Indian Railways Service Mechanical Engineers (IRSME), issued by the UPSC in the year 2009. He was selected and appointed as IRSME on OA No.1547/2020 28.02.2011. At present, he is working as Senior Divisional representation to the Mechanical Engineer. He made a Director with a request to accord him the benefit o1 pay carrying in the protection. It is stated that pay, which he was not NTPC before his selection/appointment in IRSME, was order dated protected. The Northern Railway passed an of the applicant. It is stated 08.09.2020, rejecting the case is available only when the that the benefit of pay protection selection is by way of interview and not when it is through examination. The applicant filed this open competitive written OA, challenging the order dated 08.09.2020. 2. The applicant contends that the very purpose oi protection of a pay 1s to ensure that the employees, who are working in PSU, are not put to loss when they join the other PSU or a Government department. He submits that the distinction made by the respondents was set aside by this Tribunal in its judgment dated 10.02.2017 in OA No. 3626/2012, following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WPC No. 5518/2004. 3. Today, we heard Shri Abhay Kumar, the applicant who argued the case in person, and Shri SM Arif, learned counsel for the respondents. t. The issue in this case is in a very narrow compass. It is not in dispute that the applicant was working in NTPC in the pay scale of Rs.2490050500, before he applied for the post of OA No.1547/2020 IRSME, Railways. He was sclected and appointed, but the pay was not protected. that the OM dated 10.07.1998 has maintained a I t is true method of selection/appointment of a distinction based on the when he joins another PSU, in member of service in one PSU, when sele
rt Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi ...Respondent ________________________________________________________ The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Anand Mishra, Ms. Ayushi Rajput, Ms. Kiran Sharma and Mr. Devansh Pundir, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akhil Mittal (through V.C.), Mr. Anirudh Sharma and Ms. Srishti Negi, Advocates. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on 16/12/2025 20:30:53 :::CIS 2 . G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Consideration in the present writ petition is to the opening of the financial bid of the petitioner submitted in response to the Tender Notice dated of 30.07.2025 for the Project Management Consultancy Services for Planning, Design and Development for rt Construction of various works described in the said Tender Notice, to be carried out in the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mandi. The estimated cost of the project is stated to be Rs. 375 crores and the contract was to be awarded for six years. 2. Though, petitioner has not challenged the letter dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P5), wherein it has been mentioned that the financial bid is not to be opened unless the petitioner produces the evidence of having the blacklisting order rolled back by Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (for short 'BMC') and the financial bid of other eligible bidders would be opened on or before 10.12.2025 (15.00 hours), which led to the filing of the present writ petition. ::: Downloaded on 16/12/2025 20:30:53 :::CIS 3 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner . vehemently submitted that there was no blacklisting by the competent Authority, while referring to the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), of Bhubaneswar, dated 28.07.2025 in Arb. (P) No. 37 of 2025, (Annexure P4), whereby the petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, was rt dismissed on the ground that it was premature. It is not in dispute that the order as such has not been assailed by the petitioner. It is accordingly contended that in such circumstances, there was no concealment since the last date for submitting the tender was 18.09.2025, which was extended from 06.09.2025. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sole respondent submitted that there was concealment of facts, as the details were never mentioned regarding the blacklisting and any litigation pending, while referring to the terms as such of the Proforma (AnnexureII), whereby under Clause 5, it was to be disclosed whether the bidder PSU has even been ::: Downloaded on 16/12/2025 20:30:53 :::CIS 4 blacklisted by any organization and to give details. It . has further been mentioned in the said document that if any fact/information was found incorrect/misleading, the bid would be rejected and the bidder would be
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Deependra Kumar Mishra Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Divy Krishna Bilaiya Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Shri Anshuman Swamy Government Advocate for the Respondent/State. Shri Akash Choudhury Advocate for the Respondent/Caveator through V.C. Shri Anvesh Shrivastava Advocate for the Respondent No.3. ORDER By way of the present Petition challenge is made to Order Annexure P1, whereby the respondent No.4 has been appointed by way of deputation to the post of Deputy General Manager (Civil) in the Respondent No.2/Corporation which is a Stated owned Corporation of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner that an advertisement was issued for recruitment on various posts in the Corporation vide Annexure P2 dated 15.07.2024, and for the post of Deputy General Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 10/13/2025 2:33:58 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHCJBP:50993 2 WP346032024 ManagerCivil, the requisite qualification was working on similar post of Executive Engineer or on Assistant Engineer or equivalent in Government / SemiGovernment / PSU / Limited Company and B.E./B.Tech. in Civil and minimum total 15 years experience in Building Construction. The posts were to be filled up either on the basis of deputation or on contract basis. The Respondent No.4 has been appointed on deputation. 3. Learned counsel for the the petitioner has submitted that admittedly, the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.4 are working in the Corporation as Assistant General Managers. The Petitioner has obtained VRS from BSNL in which he was working as SDE (Civil) and has been appointed on contractual basis in the Corporation on the post of Assistant General Manager vide Order Annexure P7 and had applied for the post of Deputy General Manager (Civil) on contract basis. 4. It is contended that the Respondent No.4 is originally employee in M.P. Public Works Department as SubEngineer and is working on deputation in the Corporation on the post of Assistant General Manager. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has pressed only on two grounds to challenge the appointment of Respondent No.4 by deputation. The first ground pressed is that the advertisement required the candidate for deputation to be working on the post of Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer/Equivalent whereas the Respondent No.4 is holding the substantive post of SubEngineer in M.P.P.W.D. The second ground pressed is that as per the requirements of advertisement vide clause 9(2), the candidate for deputation must provide N.O.C. from the current employer (parent Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 10/13/2025 2:33:5
Andhra Pradesh High Court Amravati Sri D.Papaiah, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 APHC010544322024 AT AMARAVATI [3330] (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No: 28354/2024 Between: Sri D.Papaiah, ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: "..... to issue Writ or Order or a direction, more in the form of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not making the balance pending payment of Rs.1,07,018/ (Rupees One lakh Seven thousand Eighteen rupees only) to the petitioner for Cosntruction of 3 Rows of 1000mm dia RCC Pipe Culvert near Panchalingala Kona Road of Erraballi GP of Pulivendula Mandal in YSR Kadapa District, vide Ag.No. /2021 2022, dated 27.12.2021." 2. The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not making the balance pending payment of Rs.1,07,018/ to the petitioner for construction of 3 rows of 1000 mm dia RCC pipe culvert near Panchalingala Kona Road of Erraballi GP of Pulivendula Mandal in YSR Kadapa District. 3. The Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Pulivendula, has filed written instructions. As seen from the said written instructions, it transpires that the petitioner has executed the work and the bill was submitted through LOA for uploading the bill by the District Collector, YSR Kadapa District, vide proceedings Rc.No.A4/49/2021 dated 20.12.2023 for Rs.1,18,909/ while uuploading the bill the token was not raised due to nonavailability of BRO and the letter is addressed to the District Collector, Kadapa, vide proceedings R.C.No.SA2/18/Court cases/Pulivendula/2024 dated 06.12.2024 for release of budget. 3 4. As seen from the above proceedings of the Executive Engineer, the respondents are not disputing the execution of the work or the entitlement of the money for the execution of the work. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents herein to release the amount due to the petitioner herein within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 06.01.2025 siva 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.28354 of 2024 Date: 06.01.2025 siva
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 16:05:50 ::: 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