abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Delhi High Court Orders Vindhya Telelinks Limited vs Bharat Broadband Network Limited on 2 March, 2021 $~16 * + ARB.P. 547/2020 VINDHYA TELELINKS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through Mr Narendra M. Sharma, Advocate. versus BHARAT BROADBAND NETWORK LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr Nikhilesh Krishnan, Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 02.03.2021 [Hearing held through videoconferencing] 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the 'A&C Act'), inter alia, praying that an Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 2. The respondent (hereafter 'BBNL') had floated a tender on 03.04.2013 for supply of 24 Fibre Metal free Optical Fibre Cable with double Sheath (G.652D) and accessories. The Tender Conditions included an Arbitration Clause. 3. The petitioner submitted its bid pursuant to the aforesaid invitation to tender. 4. The petitioner's bid for 'Package A' was accepted on 16.01.2014. BBNL issued an Advance Purchase Order (APO) on the said date. After the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL petitioner had complied with the conditions mentioned in the APO, BBNL issued a Purchase Order (PO) for 'Package A' on 07.03.2014. 5. According to the petitioner, there was a change in classification of the product in question resulting in the change in the Excise Duty as factored by BBNL. It had proceeded on the basis that the product in question attracted Excise Duty of 10.30% instead of 12.36%. The petitioner claims that it forwarded a certificate from the concerned authorities certifying the applicable rate of Excise Duty, Educational Cess and Higher Education Cess. 6. The petitioner claims that apart from the Purchase Order for 'Package A' the petitioner was also issued other Purchase Order for other Packages. 7. The petitioner claims that the petitioner had demanded the differential amount which according to the petitioner was payable to it. The said demand was not met and consequently on 09.09.2019 the petitioner issued a notice invoking the Arbitration Clause. 8. Admittedly, the Arbitration Clause is set out in the General Conditions of the Contract. The said clause is set out below: "III.20. ARBITRATION III.20.1. In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under this agreement or in connection therewith (except as to the matters, the decision to which is specifically provided under this agreement), the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the CMD, BBNL or in case his designation is changed or his office is abolished, then in such cases to the sole arbitration of the officer for the time being entrusted (whether in addition to his own duties or otherwise) with the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL functions of the CMD, BBNL or by whatever designation such an officer may be called (hereinafter referred to as the sai
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 : Tue Dec 24 20:31:29 IST 2019 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 : Tue Dec 24 20:31:29 IST 2019 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
M/s.Tata Motors Finance Ltd., ) a Company incorporated under Companies Act) 1956, having its Corporate office at Building A) 2nd Floor, Lodha 1 Think, Techno Campus, ) Off Pokhran Road 2, Thane (West), ) Thane 400 607. ) ..... Respondents ::: Downloaded on 04/03/2015 23:58:53 ::: Kvm 2/40 ARBP304.14 Mr.Rohan Cama, a/w. Mr.Sunil Chaturvedi for the Petitioner. Mr.Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate, a/w.Mr.Kingshuk Banerjee, Mr.Yuvraj Choksy, i/b. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. RESERVED ON : 18th FEBRUARY, 2015 PRONOUNCED ON : 4th MARCH, 2015 JUDGMENT : Admit. The respondents waive service. By consent of parties, matter is taken on board for final hearing. In view of the identical facts in all the eight petitions, by consent of parties all the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner in each of the petition aforesaid was the original respondent in the arbitration proceedings whereas the respondents herein were the original claimants. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 304 OF 2014 3. I will first summarize the facts in Arbitration Petition No.304 of 2014 which is the main matter which has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the said 'Arbitration Act'), the petitioner has impugned the arbtiral award dated 7th October, 2013 thereby allowing some of the claims made by the respondents. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under : 5. Sometime in the month of December 2009 the petitioner approached the respondents for a loan in the sum of Rs.19,64,000/for refinancing/purchasing the ::: Downloaded on 04/03/2015 23:58:53 ::: Kvm 3/40 ARBP304.14 vehicle. The respondents sanctioned the said loan and entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 30th December, 2009. The said loan amount with interest was repayable in the monthly installme
Competition Commission of India Antitrust Section 27 Disclaimer: The ... vs Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. & Ors. ... on 25 August, 2014 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case Nos. 03, 11 & 59 of 2012 Case No. 03 of 2012 In Re: M/s Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. Informant And 1. M/s Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Opposite Party No. 1 2. M/s Coal India Ltd. Opposite Party No. 2 WITH Case No. 11 of 2012 In Re: M/s Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. Informant And 1. M/s Western Coalfields Ltd. Opposite Party No. 1 2. M/s Coal India Ltd. Opposite Party No. 2 Case Nos. 03, 11 & 59 of 2012 Page 1 of 101 WITH Case No. 59 of 2012 In Re: M/s Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited Informant And 1. M/s South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Opposite Party No. 1 2. M/s Coal India Ltd. Opposite Party No. 2 CORAM Mr. Ashok Chawla Chairperson Dr. Geeta Gouri Member Mr. Anurag Goel Member Mr. M. L. Tayal Member Mr. Justice (retd.) S.N. Dhingra Member Mr. S. L. Bunker Member Case Nos. 03, 11 & 59 of 2012 Page 2 of 101 Appearances: Shri Sanjay Sen, Senior Advocate with Shri Matrugupta Mishra, Ms. Shikha Ohri, advocates for the informant in Case Nos. 03 and 11 of 2012 Shri Jayesh Bhairavia, Shri Gaurav Mitra, Shri Kantik Nagankutti and Shri Samreen, advocates for the informant in Case No. 59 of 2012 Shri Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pallavi S. Shroff, Shri Harman Singh Sandhu, Shri Yaman Verma, Shri Toshit Shandilya, Ms. Shwetha Shroff Chopra, advocates for the opposite parties in Case Nos. 03, 11 and 59 of 2012 Order under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 This common order shall govern the disposal of Case Nos. 03, 11 and 59 of 2012 as similar issues are involved in these cases. Facts 2. Shorn of details, facts as stated in the informations may be briefly noted. Case No. 03 of 2012 3. The information in this case was filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') by M/s Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. (MAHAGENCO) against M/s Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL) and M/s Coal India Ltd. (CIL) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act. Case Nos. 03, 11 & 59 of 2012 Page 3 of 101 4. The informant appears to be aggrieved by the fact that MCL instead of signing/ executing coal supply agreements/ fuel supply agreements as required under the Coal Distribution Policy, 2007 executed/ signed MoUs which did not cover all aspects of supply and issues. Aspects like quality control, grade failure, short supply, joint sampling etc., had not been detailed/ enumerated in clear terms and conditions. Further, it is the case of informant that it received a
CATEGORY A After filing of chargesheet/complaint taking of cognizance a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer. b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued. c) NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant. d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing. e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided. CATEG
Bombay High Court Smt. Kausalyabai Kisan Chavan vs Sakharam Namdeo Gaikwad on 13 July, 2012 1 WP.156.89 BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 156 OF 1989 Smt. Kausalyabai Kisan Chavan, R/o Shirdi, Tq. Kopergaon, District Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Sakharam Namdeo Gaikwad, deceased, through his L.Rs. 1a) Deodatta Sakharam Gaikwad, deceased, through his L.Rs. 1ai) Dipak Devdatta Gaikwad, Age 30 years, 1aii) Jayesh Devdatta Gaikwad, Age 27 years, 1aiii) Pradip Devdatta Gaikwad, Age 26 years, 1aiv) Priya Devdatta Gaikwad, age 21 years, All residents of Vidnyan Society, Motwani Road, Datta Mandir, Nasik Road, Nasik. 1av) Rajani Devdatta Gaikwad, ageMajor, r/o Udyan Housing society, Ramnagar, Datta Mandir Road, Nasik. ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 18:48:57 ::: 2 WP.156.89 1b) Purushottam Sakharam Gaikwad, Age : Major, occ.: R/o Shirdi (Bhim Nagar), Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 1c) Prakash Sakharam Gaikwad, Age : Major, R/o Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 1d) Vijaya Suresh Salve, Age : Major, R/o as above. 1e) Jayshree Ohal, Age 57 years, R/o St. Peter Church, Post Belapur (Bk.) Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. 2. Sajan Namdeo Gaikwad, Deceased through his Legal heirs: 2(a) Vidhyadhar Sajan Gaikwad, Age 65 yrs, RA, BA. 48, Rajya Karmachari Society, Ashok Nagar, Nashik. 2(b) Smt. Sushila Ramesh Gaikwad, Age 50 yrs, 2(c) Kum. Priya Ramesh Gaikwad, Age 20 yrs, 2(d) Pravin Ramesh Gaikwad, Age 24 yrs, 2(e) Pramod Ramesh Gaikwad, ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 18:48:57 ::: 3 WP.156.89 Age 24 years, All Residents of Bhimnagar, At Shirdi, Taluka Rahata, Dist Ahmednagar. 2(f) Sunil Sajan Gaikwad, Age 55 yrs, Behind Bus Stand, R/o. Shirdi, Taluka Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2(g) Sow. Indubai Thomas Palande, Age 67 yrs, R/o. Tirupati Engineering Works, Chikalthana, At and Dist. Aurangabad. 2(h) Mrs. Shakuntala Sunderrao Bramhane, Age 58 yrs, RA.58 A85, Satpur Colony, at and Dist. Nashik. 2(i) Mrs. Mangal Francis Shinde, Age 55 yrs, Resident of Prabha Society, Ramwadi, Pune 14. 2(j) Mrs. Meena Balasaheb Sagalgile, Age 50 yrs, R/o. Sasneh Apartment, Rahuri Factory, At Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2(k) Kishor Sajan Gaikwad, Age 57 yrs, resident of Sopan Naga
contend that the grievance raised in the petition would be covered by the said judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not answer the said contention and left the issue open for consideration before this court. 2. This matter was placed before this Bench for the ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 14:03:26 ::: 3 first time for hearing on 10.11.2008. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard on 11.11.2008 and 12.11.2008, when the judgment was pronounced. 3. A few relevant facts may now be set out. The Petitioner joined the Indian Air force and was commissioned as an Officer in 1946 and served
67, Chamiers Road, Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Chennai600 028. Unit, Chennai600 101. [PAN: AAACT 2916 R] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,यथ+/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.629/Mds/2013 िनधारण वष /Assessment Year: 200708 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s.Turbo Energy Ltd., Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, 67, Chamiers Road, Chennai600 101. Chennai600 028. [PAN: AAACT 2916 R] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,यथ+/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.203, 204 & 205/Mds/2014 नधा.रण वष. /Assessment Years: 200607, 200809 & 200910 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s.Turbo Energy Ltd., Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, 67, Chamiers Road, Chennai600 101. Chennai600 028. [PAN: AAACT 2916 R] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,यथ+/Respondent) अपीलाथ+ क0 ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ,यथ+ क0 ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Pathlavath Peerya, CIT सुनवाई क0 तार ख/Date of Hearing : 11.04.2017 घोषणा क0 तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.05.2017 ITA No.351/Mds/2013 & ITA Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 ITA No.629/Mds/2013 ITA Nos.203, 204 & 205/Mds/2014 : 2 : आदे श / O R D E R PER D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These are the cross appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A) for the A.Y 200607, 200708, 200809 and 200910. Since the common issues are involved, all the appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in common order for the sake of the convenience as under: 2.0 ITA No.203/2014 AY 200607: All the grounds of appeal for the AY 200607 are related to the set off of unabsorbed business losses pertaining to the eligible unit of 10B against the profits of non eligible undertaking of 10B units. The appeal was filed by the Revenue. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has incurred a loss of Rs.2,33,61,500/ from 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU) Astra Tel, which was set off against the income of non10B Units( i.e. from normal taxable income of other units). The AO was of the view that the unit eligible for deduction u/s 10B is a separate entity for the purpose of Income Tax and to be assessed as an independent unit as if it is only the source of income. The unabsorbed losses of eligible units of 10B undertaking should be carried forwarded separately and allowed to be set off against the future incomes of 10B units alone. Further, the AO opined that in case, the assessee wishes to ITA No.351/Mds/2013 & ITA Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 ITA No.629/Mds/2013 ITA Nos.203, 204 & 205/Mds/2014 : 3 : avail the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, it should opt out from claiming the deduction u/s 10B and submit a declaration as per Sec.10B(8) of IT Act before the due date of filing the return of income treating the eligible unit as a noneligible unit u/s.10B of IT Act. In the instant case the assesse has not furnished any such undertaking hence the AO was of the view that the provisions of Sec.80IA and 10B are parimeteria and accordingly, disallowed the set off of losses relating to 10B unit against the profits of noneligible units and computed the total income at Rs.85,25,27,
MSME COMMISSIONERATE Appearance: MR HM PARIKH, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MR RASESH H PARIKH(3862) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR HEMANG H PARIKH(2628) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR GM AMIN(124) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 MR MITUL SHELAT WITH MR RUTUL P DESAI(6498) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR AKASH CHHAYA, AGP (5) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 Page 1 of 40 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 20:33:43 IST 2020 C/LPA/1667/2019 CAV JUDGMENT and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI Date : 24/07/2020 CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH) 1 The present appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11169 of 2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant has been dismissed. 2 The present appellant viz. JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, filed Special Civil Application No.11169 of 2018 praying for the following reliefs: "[A] Admit this writ petition; [B] Allow this writ petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.06.2018 passed by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure `A'); Page 2 of 40 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 20:33:43 IST 2020 C/LPA/1667/2019 CAV JUDGMENT [C] Pending admission hearing and till final disposal of the present writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to grant stay of operation, execution and implementation of the impugned order dated 30.06.2018;" 3 Before proceedings to deal with the matter on its merits, basic facts relevant for the purpose are stated hereunder: 3.1 The petitioner company entered into an agreement with M/s. Aquafil Wintech JV [hereinafter referred to as `the JV'], a joint venture of M/s. Acquafil Polymers Company Private Limited (Respondent No.2) and M/s. Wintech Engineering Private Ltd. in respect of the work order dated 08.08.2014 on turnkey basis. The work related to procurement of Design, Supply, Installation and Commissioning of Intake Facilities, Transmission Mains, Water Treatment Plant and Reservoir for North Zone including 5 years of operation and Maintenance of JICA funded Guwahati Water Supply Project. The completion period of the contract for the work other than Operation and Maintenance service was 28 months from the date of Page 3 of 40 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 20:33:43 IST 2020 C/LPA/1667/2019 CAV JUDGMENT commencement and thereafter the JV was obliged to render Operation and Maintenance service for 5 years. The total contract value was Rs.79.47 Crores for E.P.C. and Operation and Maintenance. According to the petitioner, the JV delayed the execution and work which was duly intimated t
Madras High Court The Dean vs / on 6 September, 2019 W.P.No.17809 of 2019 Dated: 06.09.2019 The Honourable Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran W.P.No.17809 of 2019 & W.M.P.No.17210 of 2019 The Dean, Government Dharmapuri, Medical College Hospital, Dharmapuri – 636 701. ... Petitioner /versus/ 1. M/s.Hindusthan Surgicals, No.4/485, Railway Station Road, Government Dharmapuri Medical College Hospital Back, Dharmapuri. 2. The Chairman, Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, & Additional Chief Secretary/Industries, Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, Chennai. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of 2nd respondent in passing the order dated 14.07.2016 in case No.M&SEFC/CBER/36/2016 in reference, quash the same and pass orders. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Spl.Govt.Pleader For R1 : Mr.P.Valliappan For R2 : No appearance 1/7 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.17809 of 2019 ORDER The writ petitioner is the Dean of the Government Dharmapuri, Medical College Hospital, Dharmapuri. The first respondent has supplied nitrous oxide and medical oxygen gases filled in cylinders to the petitioner college, pursuant to the contract, entered with the Government of Tamil Nadu on 29.03.2012. 2.During the course of transaction, nitrous oxide and medical oxygen gases filled in cylinders were supplied by the first respondent for which, the petitioner owes a balance of Rs.82,04,493/. A reference was preferred by the first respondent before the Regional Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as “the Council”) under the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the MSMED Act, 2006). 3.During the conciliation proceedings before the Council, the petitioner paid substantial amount towards the claim. On 04.06.2016, the Council directed the petitioner to balance sum of Rs.41,99,874/ on or before 30.06.2016. The petitioner failed to pay the money before the due date. The Council recording the failure of conciliation, passed the following order : “The Council direct that the petitioner 2/7 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.17809 of 2019 (M/s.Hindusthan Surgicals) is entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs.41,99,874/ (Rupees Forty one lakh ninety nine thousand eight hundred and seventy four only) with compound interest for pending bills with appointed due date of 45 days from invoice date., i.e., due date commencing from 20132014 and 20142015. Therefore, the respondent (The Dean, Government Dharmapuri, Medical College Hospital) shall be liable to pay the principal sum of Rs.41,99,874/ (Rupees Forty one lakh ninety nine thousand eight hundred and seventy four only) together with compounded interest with monthly rest, at three time of the Bank