abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Delhi High Court Orders Indraprastha Gas Limited vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 November, 2025 $~O23 * + CS(COMM) 1274/2025 and I.A. 2973829741/2025 INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sachin Puri, Sr. Adv., Mr. Prasant Mehta, Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Mr. Krishna Shukla, Mr. Pranav Singh & Ms. Rini Mehra, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, CGSC, Mr. Sankalp Mishra, GP & Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaudhary, Advs. for D1 & 2. Ms. Pavira Kaur & Ms. Shreya Mishra, Advs. for D5. Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Ms. Simran Rao & Mr. Rishabh Varshney, Advs. for NBCC. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV ORDER % 28.11.2025 1. When the matter is called out, at the outset Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, learned counsel who appears for NBCC on advance instructions, submits that though the NBCC is not a party, however construction, which is the subject matter of the communications/letters in dispute in the suit, is being carried out by the NBCC. According to him, the mechanism provided in the office memorandum dated 25.07.2024 bearing No. DPE05/0002/2023 AMRCD, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Public Enterprises, is capable of adjudicating the dispute which is raised here by the 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 01/12/2025 at 22:27:50 plaintiff. 2. Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel who appears for the plaintiff, however, contends that the plaintiff may not strictly fall in the category of Government PSU, so as to be eligible for availing recourse to the aforesaid mechanism, as the plaintiff has only 50% shareholding of PSU/Government. 3. To this, Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, learned counsel submits that the NBCC has no objection if the parties are referred to the mechanism stipulated in the office memorandum dated 25.07.2024. Let the learned counsel for Union to also come back with the instructions as to whether the Union is also agreeable for the reference of the dispute to the Administrative Mechanism for CPSEs Disputes. 4. List on 01.12.2025. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J NOVEMBER 28, 2025/NG 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 01/12/2025 at 22:27:50
Delhi High Court Department Of Land Resources vs Mfs Mukesh And Associates on 30 January, 2024 $~18 * Date of decision: 30.01.2024 + O.M.P. (COMM) 589/2020 & I.A. 12154/2020, I.A. 12156/2020 I.A. 24079/2023 DEPARTMENT OF LAND RESOURCES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms. Jayashree, Adv. versus MFS MUKESH AND ASSOCIATES ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S Santanam, Mr. Darsh Bansal, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Advs. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH : JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Act") seeking to set aside the arbitral award dated 10.01.2020 as amended on 13.02.2020 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in ARB.P. 171/2018. 2. It is stated by Mr. Gogna, learned CGSC for the petitioner, that the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds stated under Section 34(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act, as well as Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. Digitally Signed O.M.P. (COMM) 589/2020 Page 1 of 23 By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:16.02.2024 12:11:01 3. He states that the award suffers from both factual and legal errors. 4. As regards factual errors, he submits that the contract entered into between the parties was void ab initio and hence, has no legal validity as the respondent got the same in a contrived manner and did not comply with the legal and statutory requirements. 5. He submits that the respondent never submitted Expression of Interest (hereinafter "EoI") within the prescribed date. 6. It is stated that on 11.01.2014, the petitioner, i.e. Department of Land Resources under the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India issued advertisement for Expression of Interest (hereinafter "EoI") from interested/eligible consultants for assignment of „Monitoring and Evaluation task to external agencies‟ to ensure objectivity, transparency and credibility of Integrated Watershed Management Portal ("IWMP") implemented by it, separately for 5 regions, i.e. East, West, North, South and NorthEast regions. 7. As per condition 7 of the EoI, the EoI with accompanying information was to be delivered in a written form in a sealed envelope to the mailing address as mentioned therein within three weeks from the publication of EoI. The EoI categorically mentioned that proposals received after due date will not be entertained under any circumstances. 8. The advertisement was published in the newspaper on 11.01.2014 and the three weeks expired on 01.02.1014, but since 01.02.2014 was a Saturday and a nonworking day of the Department, the last date for submission was to be treated as 03.02.2014. 9. It is stated that the respondent did not submit its proposal till the last date, i.e. 03.02.2014 in the written form and in a sealed envelope as Digitally Signed O.M.P. (COMM)
DCITCircle 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. ) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri G.S.Pannu, Vice President and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA No.1257/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 200910) Piramal Healthcare Limited Deputy Commissioner of Income (Now known as Piramal Enterprises Ltd.) Tax 7(1) Piramal Tower, Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. M.K. Road Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 013 PAN AAACN4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.1486/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 200910) Deputy Commissioner of Income Piramal Healthcare Limited (Now known as Piramal Enterprises Ltd.) Tax 7(1)Room No. 622, Aayakar Piramal Tower, Bhavan, M.K. Road Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai 400 020 Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 PAN AAACN4538P Appellant by: Sh. J.D, Mistry, Senior Advocate & S/sh. Madhur Agarwal & Ronak Doshi, A.Rs Respondent by: S/sh. Bhupendra Kumar Singh & Jothilakshmi Nayak, D.Rs Date of Hearing: 08.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 07.05.2019 P a g e |2 ITA No.1257 & 1486/Mum/2014 AY. 200910 Piramal Healthcare Limited Vs. DCIT7(1 DCITCircle 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. ) ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are directed against the order passed by the AO under Sec.143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „IT Act‟), dated 28.01.2014 for Assessment Year 200910. As the issues involved in the present appeals are inextricably interlinked and interwoven and arise from a common impugned order, therefore, both the appeals are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a consolidated order. We shall first advert to the appeal filed by the assessee, wherein the following grounds of appeal have been raised before us: "GROUND I: DISALLOWANCE OF SOFTWARE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO Rs.14,00,800/ 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the AO erred in following the erroneous direction of Dispute Resolution Panel ("the DRP") in disallowing software expenses claimed under the head "Repairs Computer Others" on the alleged ground that the said expenses are capital in nature and has long term benefits. 2. The Appellant prays that the A.O be directed to treat expenditure incurred on software as revenue expenditure. 3. Without prejudice, the AO be directed to allow depreciation @ 60% on the software expenses incurred. GROUND II: DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) IN RESPECT OF ENNORE UNIT AND GOREGAON UNIT: Rs.24,89,50,211/ 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O erred in following the erroneous direction of Dispute Resolution Panel ("the DRP") in disallowing the weighted deduction claimed u/s. 35(2AB) in respect of R & D expenses (Revenue and Capital) related to Ennore Unit and Goregaon Unit amounting to Rs.24,89,50,211/ on the alleged ground that no approval is granted by appropriate authority for these units in Form 3CM. 2. The A.O failed to appreciate and ought to have held
Delhi High Court Envitech Consultants India Pvt Ltd vs Rudrabhishek Enterprises Limited & Ors on 24 November, 2025 * % Judgment delivered on: 24/11/2025 + CS(COMM) 892/2023, I.A. 25294/2023, I.A. 31835/2024 & I.A. 32699/2024 ENVITECH CONSULTANTS INDIA PVT LTD .....Plaintiff versus RUDRABHISHEK ENTERPRISES LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendants Advocates who appeared in this case For the Plaintiff : Mr. Vivekanand Sharma, AR of the Plaintiff. For the Defendants : Mr. Joydip Bhattcharya, Mr. Surendra Kumar and Ms. Ipsita Biswas, Advocates for D1 & 3. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA JUDGMENT TEJAS KARIA, J I.A. No. 8257/2024 1. The present Application has been filed by Defendant No. 1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking rejection of Plaint filed by the Plaintiff. Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 892/2023 Page 1 of 29 Signed By:SWATI MAYEE SAHU Signing Date:24.11.2025 20:50:22 2. Plaintiff is a consultancy startup and registered Micro, Small and Medium enterprise, engaged in the business of consultancy services into water supply, sanitation, waste management, public health engineering and the environmental and sustainable development. 3. Defendant No. 1 is an enterprise engaged in the business of urban development and infrastructure consultancy. 4. The present Suit concerns alleged act of copyright infringement by the Defendants of works of Detailed Project Reports ("DPRs") for largescale surfacesource based water supply schemes on districtlevel scale and setting covering Chitrakoot district in Uttar Pradesh ("Subject Work") and reliefs of permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, damages and other reliefs under Sections 55, 57, 58 read with Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 ("Act"). SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1: 5. The learned Counsel for Defendant No. 1 made the following submissions: 5.1. Defendant No. 1 is engaged in the business of Urban Development and Infrastructure Consultancy. Defendant No. 1 was awarded a consultancy contract to provide consultancy services for preparation of DPRs for 3 districts, i.e., Banda, Hamirpur and Chitrakoot by the State Water Sanitation Mission ("SWSM"), Lucknow, Government of Uttar Pradesh ("U.P.") vide Letter of Award dated 01.01.2019 and consequent Contract dated 05.01.2019. 5.2. In relation with the preparation of the Subject Work, Defendant No. 1 came in contact with the Plaintiff, which was introduced by Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 892/2023 Page 2 of 29 Signed By:SWATI MAYEE SAHU Signing Date:24.11.2025 20:50:22 one Mr. Vivekanand Sharma, a former employee of Defendant No. 1, who worked with Defendant No. 1 as a General Manager Infrastructure Services from 11.03.2019 to 29.04.2019. However, Mr. Vivekanand Sharma persuaded Defendant No. 1 to appoint the Plaintiff as subcontractor, while conc
1.The Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai – 3. 2.The Chief Engineer (ConstructionS&RB), Southern Railway, Construction Department, Egmore, Chennai – 8. http://www.judis.nic.in 1/26 O.P.Nos.700, 886, 765 and 786 of 2018 3.The Deputy Chief Engineer (MASII), Southern Railway, Construction Department, near My Lady's Garden, Chennai – 3. ... Respondents OP.No.700/2018 1.The Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai – 3. 2.Senior Divisional Engineer (South), Madurai Division, Southern Railway, Madurai. ... Respondents in OP.No.886/2018 1.The Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai – 3. 2.The Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Southern Railway, Periyar EVR High Road, Egmore, Chennai – 8. 3.The Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway, Periyar EVR High Road, Egmore, Chennai – 8. 4.The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways), Tirumailai Station Building, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. ... Respondents in OP.No.765/2018 1.The Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai – 3. 2.The Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Southern Railway, Egmore, Chennai – 8. 3.The Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway, Periyar EVR High Road, Egmore, Chennai – 8. http://www.judis.nic.in 2/26 O.P.Nos.700, 886, 765 and 786 of 2018 Prayer in OP.No.700/2018: Original Petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an independent arbitrator to arbitrate all the claims and disputes between the petitioner and the respondents arising out of the Agreement No.115/CN/2009 dated 16.12.2009. Prayer in OP.No.886/2018: Original Petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an independent arbitrator and refer all Claims arising out of the Contract bearing the Agreement No. MDU/56/2015 dated 05/02/2015 to Arbitration. Prayer in OP.No.765/2018: Original Petition
F.A.No.09/2024 For the Appellants: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate . For the Respondent: Mr.Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. ........................................................................... Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R: Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 23.11.2023 of learned District Commission, Una, Camp at Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No.101/2017 titled Satya Devi Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. Brief facts of Case: 2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased a truck No. HP64B1400, which was financed by opposite parties No.1 and 2. On 23.10.2016, when the vehicle in question was returning from Roorki and was on the way to Bilaspur, the opposite parties/financer through their agents and servants took forcible possession of vehicle in question. No order of competent Court was obtained before 2 Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr.Vs. Satya Devi F.A.No.09/2024 taking possession of said vehicle from complainant. Complainant was earning Rs.4,000/ per day from said vehicle at the time of taking forcible possession of the vehicle by opposite parties/financer and complainant has suffered loss of Rs.1,20,000/ per month. Complainant had paid all installments of loan almost timely except few installments, but despite that opposite parties/financer adopted illegal and forcible means and took possession of the vehicle. Legal notice was also issued to opposite parties/financer. There is deficiency in service on behalf of opposite parties/financer. Hence, the present complaint. 3. The opposite parties/financer resisted and contested the complaint by filing reply and alleged that as per Arbitration Agreement, owner of the vehicle voluntarily surrendered the same as she was chronic defaulter in repayment of loan. Opposite parties/Financer never took forcible possession of the 3 Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr.Vs. Satya Devi F.A.No.09/2024 vehicle through their servant. Complainant has not paid regular installments of loan account. The loan account balance pending on 20.12.2016 was Rs.17,74,500/ and AFC due was Rs.1,90,798/ with future interest of Rs.9,46,400/ against the complainant. There is no deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties/financer and prays that complaint may be dismissed. 4. Rejoinder denying the contents of the reply filed by the opposite parties and reiterating those of the complaint has been filed. 5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 6. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint of the complainant. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellants/opposite parties 4 Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr.Vs. Satya Devi F.A.No.09/2024 have preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
Delhi High Court Ms Grand Mumtaz Hotel And Resort Through ... vs Deputy Commissioner North East ... on 5 July, 2023 $~ * Reserved on: 9th May, 2023 Date of decision: 5th July, 2023 + W.P.(C) 16588/2022 and CM APPL. 52144/2022, 52145/2022 M/S GRAND MUMTAZ HOTEL AND RESORT THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR WASIM MUSHTAQ ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shekhar Dasi and Mr. Ayush Dassi, Advocates (M9871655327) versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NORTH EAST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Mehak Nakra, ASC with Mr. Karan Kapur, Advocate for R1 (M:9871144582) Dr. Farrukh Khan, Mr. Anup Kr. Nagar, Mr. Aman Rai and Ms. Shagun Sarohi, Advocates for R2 (M:9205029846). JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. This petition raises important issues under the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter 'MSMED Act, 2006') and has been heard time to time by this Court along with other matters raising similar issues. 3 The question that arises in this petition is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 16588/2022 Page 1 of 16 Signing Date:05.07.2023 18:21:11 Whether the `Supplier' ought to be registered under the MSMED Act, 2006 on the date when the contract is executed between the parties, in order to avail of the arbitral mechanism prescribed under the said Act? Brief Facts 4. The Petitioner M/s Grand Mumtaz Hotel and Resort seeks quashing/ setting aside of the impugned reference order dated 8th October, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 Deputy Commissioner, North East, Government of NCT of Delhi, acting as Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter 'MSEFC') under the MSMED Act, 2006. By the impugned order the MSEFC has forwarded the reference sought under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 by Respondent No.2 M/s Dhruv Construction & Interiors, to Respondent No.3 Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The Petitioner also challenges the order dated 17th October, 2022 passed by the DIAC by which the parties have been directed to file a statement of claim and reply before it. 5. An agreement dated 9th March, 2018 was entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 for the renovation of hotel rooms of the Petitioner's hotel located in Sonmarg, Jammu & Kashmir. By the said agreement the Petitioner handed over the interiors and other related works for his hotel to the Respondent No. 2. 6. The last invoices raised by the Respondent No. 2 in terms of the aforementioned agreement were on 17th September, 2019 and 18th September, 2019. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 registered itself under the MSMED Act, 2006 on 25th September, 2020 vide Udhyam Registration No. DL050001690. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
LTD. Having Office at A/P­90/B, Sector B, South Cannal Road, Metropolitan Societies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal 3. Offence complained of : U/S 138 The Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. 4. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. 5. Final Arguments : 02.12.2022 6. Date of Institution of case : 09.10.2021 7. Date of decision of the case : 16.12.2022 JUDGMENT 1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant, M/S CICO TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') through it's AR Mr. Sandeep Chatterjee, who has been authorized to pursue this complaint vide it's board of resolution dated 16.02.2021, against the accused persons namely 1) M/S SIX SEASON CONCRETEX PVT. LTD., 2) MR. DEVENDER YADAV (Director) and 3) MR. GAUTAM CHAKRABORTHY (Director) (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons'). 2. Factual Matrix: The complainant's case is that it i
Constructions Pvt. Ltd., the Opposite Party is directed as under: "(i) To refund the amount of Rs.27 lacs to the Complainant, along with interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards. (ii) To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.25 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the Complainant, as also escalation in prices. (iii) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.44,000/ to the Complainant. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr. nos. (i) to (iii) shall be made, in all the Complaints, as ordered above, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr. no. (i) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of @13%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @13% p.a. on the 3 amounts mentioned at Sr. Nos. (ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this Complaint, till realization." 2. The Judgment Debtors assailed the aforesaid order dated 08.05.2017 passed by this Commission by filing First Appeal No.2068 of 2017 before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. During the pendency of above appeal, an amount of Rs.27,00,000/ was received by the Decree Holder on 03.07.2019 as per interim order passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Eventually, the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order dated 19.12.2022 partly allowed the First Appeal filed by the Judgment Debtors by passing the following order: "11. I, therefore, partly allow the present Appeal and issue the following directions: 1. Appellant