abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
1 New Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Chairman NDMC Bhawan Parliament Street New Delhi ....... Respondent No. 1 2 The Estate Officer N.D.M.C, Palika Kendra New Delhi ....... Respondent No. 2 3 Ms. Raj Rani Verma D/o Diwan Chand Verma R/o 614, Shardhanand Marg District Judge,PHC/ND Rachna vs. NDMC Page No 1 of 13 2 New Delhi ....... Respondent No. 3 Date of institution : 20.12.1995 Date of receipt of this case in this court: 05.12.2008 Date of hearing arguments : 05.07.2011 Date of passing of the judgement : 13.07.2011 Present: Sh O P Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Sh Manoj K. Singh Advocate for the respondent No.1. JUDGEMENT: 1 This appeal under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 ( in short, " the Act") was filed way back on 20.12.1995. 2 Both the parties have filed memo of arguments. I have gone through the same. 3 Ms Shakuntla Verma, claiming herself to be the autorized partner of M/s Rachna, a partnership firm, had , vide deed of licence dated 30.9.1985, taken Kiosk No. 8, multi­level under­ground parking, Palika Parking, Connaught Place, New Delhi (hereinafter the "Premises in dispute") on license @ Rs. 11,454/­ (licence fee) per month for a period of 5 years in the first instance. The licence fee was to commence from 29.6.1985 on ''as is where is basis''. The firm was to start the business of sale of confectionery items, packed namkeen etc. Since, as per respondent no. 1, Smt. Shakuntala Verma had not paid the agreed monthly license fee, therefore, a petition for District Judge,PHC/ND Rachna vs. NDMC Page No 2 of 13 3 eviction and recovery of arrears of license fee and damages with interest was filed by respondent no. 1 before the Estate Officer. Notices under sections 4 (1) and 7 (3) of the Act were issued and were served upon the appellant for 23.3.1988. 4 During pendency of the matter before the Estate Officer, the premises in dispute were vacated and the possession was delivered to respondent no. 1 on 6.4.1994. 5 Smt. Shakuntla Verma then preferred this appeal on 20.12.1995 against the order dated 26.10.1995. 6 Respondent No. 3 was the other partner of the firm. 7 The Estate Officer after taking into account the defence and the evidence produced by the parties, passed a detailed and comprehensive order dated 26.10.1995, directing the appellant to pay Rs. 2,52,752.41P ( the arrears of license fee) and Rs. 1,13,916.13P ( being the damages) with interest. 8 The defence of Smt. Shakuntla Verma , as put forth by her before the Estate Officer and decipherable from the impugned order was that no proper court fee had been paid; notices have not been issued by the competent officer to initiate the proceedings; respondent no. 1 had no power to give the shop on license; it has powers to let the shop on rent. Thus, the arrangement between the parties is a lease agreement. The alleged license had not been duly executed. Respondent No. 1 had been superseded, as such the eviction petition was bad for non­joinder of the state gov
The Joint Venture M.s,Transtonnelstroy – Afcons JV Comprising of, 1] Transtonnelstroy Limited, 4/1. Luganskaya Str, Moscow, 115516, Russia. AND 2] Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Afcons House, 16, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Azad Nagar [P.O.], Post Box No.11978, Andheri [W], Mumbai – 400 053. ... Respondents in both O.Ps. Page 1 / 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Original Petition Nos.96 & 97 of 2021 Prayer: Petitions filed under section 34 [2] [a] [iv], 34 [2] [b] [ii], 34 [2A] read with sections 18 and 28 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [As Amended] to set aside the impugned Award dated 01.06.2021 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and allow these petitions with costs. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, SC for Mr.S.Arjun Suresh For respondents : Mr.G.Masilamani, SC for Mr.D.Balaraman COMMON ORDER Aggrieved over granting extension of time in both the petitions O.P.No.96 of 2021 and 97 of 2021 have been filed challenging the awards. 2. The subject matter of O.P.No.96 of 2021 is the scope of work relating to design and construction of underground stations at Shenoy Nagar, Anna Nagar East, Anna Nagar Tower, Thirumanalam and Associated Tunnels in respect of the Contract No.UAA05 The date of commencement of the contract was on 07.02.2011 and scheduled date of completion was on 07.01.2015. The total Contract value is Rs.1030.99 crores. However, the revised completion date was Page 2 / 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Original Petition Nos.96 & 97 of 2021 agreed upon between the parties by an addendum dated 29.08.2013 and the completion dated was extended upto 05.07.2015. 3. In respect of subject matter of O.P.No.97 of 2021, the scope of work relate to design and construction of underground stations at Washermanpet, Mannadi, High Court, Chennai Central and Egmore and Associated Tunnels in respect of Contract No.UAA01. The contract commencement date was on 07.02.2011 and scheduled completion date was on 07.04.2015. The value of the contract was Rs.1556.81 crores. The revised completion date as per the addendum was extended upto 30.03.2016. 4. As the dispute arose between the parties in respect of the contracts, particularly, with regard to the extension of time, the matter has been referred to arbitral tribunal. The claimant herein after called as TTAJV made the claim in respect of the contract in U.A.A.No.05 [O.P.No.96 of 2021] before the arbitral tribunal. In Claim No.1 extension of time is sought up to 28.12.2017 for the events between 07.02.2011 and 31.12.2012. In Claim No.2, extension was sought upto 26.01.2019 for the events between 16.04.2013 and 31.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED Appearance: BANSI M KARIA(9320) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 RAJVI N PATEL(9620) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 Date : 27/02/2020 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The word 'domicile' is "to identify the personal law by which an individual is governed in respect of various matters such as the essential validity of a marriage, the effect of marriage on the proprietary rights of husband and wife, jurisdiction in divorce and nullity of marriage, illegitimacy, legitimation and adoption and testamentary and intestate succession to moveables. "Domicile" as pointed Page 2 of 65 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 14:47:15 IST 2020 C/SCA/2053/2020 JUDGMENT out in Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) vol. 8, paragraph 421 is the legal relationship between an individual and a territory with a distinct legal system, which invokes that system as his personal law.It is well settled that the domicile of a person in that country in which he either has or is deemed by law to have his permanent home. "By domicile" said Lord Cranworth in Wicker v. Humes, [1858] 7 HL Cases 124, "We mean home, the permanent home". 2. "Domicile" is basically a legal concept for the purpose of determining what is the personal law applicable to an individual and even if an
Madras High Court Torque Technics vs Owners And Parties Interested In Vessel ... on 17 September, 2025 C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.131 of 2025 DATED: 17.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.131 of 2025 and A.No.2420 of 2025 Torque Technics, Rep. by its authorized Signatory K.Gurumurthi No. 37/20, 3rd Lane, North Beach Road, Chennai 600001. ... Plaintiff vs. Owners and Parties interested in vessel Sea Hunter having IMO No. 9549827 Having Indian Flag, Now lying at withing Cuddalore Port Limits, Port Road, Old town, Cuddalore 607 003. Represented by its Master. .. Defendant Prayer: Plaint filed under Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 R/W Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Order IV Rule 1 & Rule 2 & Order XLII, O.S. Rules 1956, prays for the Judgment and Decree against the defendant as follows: 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm ) C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.131 of 2025 A. That the defendant vessel directed to pay the plaintiff towards the suit claim made a sum of Rs.4,12,118/ (Rupees Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand One hundred and Eighteen only) together with interest calculated as per section 15 & 16 of MSMED Act 2006 totaling to Rs.6,42,085/ (Rupees Six Lakhs FortyTwo Thousand EightyFive Only) totaling at Rs.10,54,203/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs FiftyFour Thousand two Hundred and Three Only) along with the further interest from the date of plaint till the date of realization; B. That the defendant Vessel be detained/arrested from sailing away from the Port limits of Cuddalore, Port Road, Old Town/Indian Territorial waters by an order of arrest, together with her hull, tackle engine, machinery, spares, gear, apparel, paraphernalia, furniture articles, things on board, etc.; C. Award cost of the suit. For Plaintiff : Ms. P.Bhavani Devi For Defendant : Mr.H.Siddharth JUDGMENT The suit was filed as an admiralty action for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,54,203/. The matter was referred for mediation to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The plaintiff and the defendant 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm ) C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.131 of 2025 participated in such mediation. The said parties arrived at a settlement and executed the Settlement Agreement dated 11.08.2025. The Mediation Centre has placed on record mediation report dated 11.08.2025 enclosing the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement is extracted hereunder: 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm ) C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.131 of 2025 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm ) C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.131 of 2025 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:39:38 pm ) C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.131 of 2025
The Joint Venture M.s,Transtonnelstroy – Afcons JV Comprising of, 1] Transtonnelstroy Limited, 4/1. Luganskaya Str, Moscow, 115516, Russia. AND 2] Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Afcons House, 16, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Azad Nagar [P.O.], Post Box No.11978, Andheri [W], Mumbai – 400 053. ... Respondents in both O.Ps. Page 1 / 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Original Petition Nos.96 & 97 of 2021 Prayer: Petitions filed under section 34 [2] [a] [iv], 34 [2] [b] [ii], 34 [2A] read with sections 18 and 28 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [As Amended] to set aside the impugned Award dated 01.06.2021 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and allow these petitions with costs. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, SC for Mr.S.Arjun Suresh For respondents : Mr.G.Masilamani, SC for Mr.D.Balaraman COMMON ORDER Aggrieved over granting extension of time in both the petitions O.P.No.96 of 2021 and 97 of 2021 have been filed challenging the awards. 2. The subject matter of O.P.No.96 of 2021 is the scope of work relating to design and construction of underground stations at Shenoy Nagar, Anna Nagar East, Anna Nagar Tower, Thirumanalam and Associated Tunnels in respect of the Contract No.UAA05 The date of commencement of the contract was on 07.02.2011 and scheduled date of completion was on 07.01.2015. The total Contract value is Rs.1030.99 crores. However, the revised completion date was Page 2 / 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Original Petition Nos.96 & 97 of 2021 agreed upon between the parties by an addendum dated 29.08.2013 and the completion dated was extended upto 05.07.2015. 3. In respect of subject matter of O.P.No.97 of 2021, the scope of work relate to design and construction of underground stations at Washermanpet, Mannadi, High Court, Chennai Central and Egmore and Associated Tunnels in respect of Contract No.UAA01. The contract commencement date was on 07.02.2011 and scheduled completion date was on 07.04.2015. The value of the contract was Rs.1556.81 crores. The revised completion date as per the addendum was extended upto 30.03.2016. 4. As the dispute arose between the parties in respect of the contracts, particularly, with regard to the extension of time, the matter has been referred to arbitral tribunal. The claimant herein after called as TTAJV made the claim in respect of the contract in U.A.A.No.05 [O.P.No.96 of 2021] before the arbitral tribunal. In Claim No.1 extension of time is sought up to 28.12.2017 for the events between 07.02.2011 and 31.12.2012. In Claim No.2, extension was sought upto 26.01.2019 for the events between 16.04.2
Delhi High Court Yogendra Mittal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 15 January, 2024 $~ * % Reserved on: October 04, 2023 Decided on: January 15, 2024 + CRL.M.C. 6183/2019 & CRL.M.A. 41717/2019 YOGENDRA MITTAL ..... Petitioner Through: M. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Yugant Sharma, Mr. Hardik Sharma, Mr. Pankush Goyal and Mr. Siddharth Bhardwaj, Advocates. V CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, SPP with Mr. Arjun Gaur and Mr. Rajat Gupta, Advocates. CORAM HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN JUDGMENT 1. The present petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") on behalf of the petitioner for Setting aside the order dated 12.09.2019 (hereinafter referred to as "impugned order") passed by the court of Special judge CBI (PC Act)02, Rouse avenue Courts, Delhi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIDHI Signing Date:16.01.2024 CRL.M.C.6183/2019 Page 1 15:25:42 (hereinafter referred as "the trial court") passed in CBI V Ulhas Prabhakar Khaire and another bearing Court Case no 312/19 arising out of RC bearing no RCACl 2013 A000l registered under section 120B IPC read with sections 7 & 13 (2) and section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as "PC Act") whereby the trial court passed an order on charge and also framed charges against the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case are that a written complaint dated 27.11.2012 was made by Raj Kumar Saha, Inspector, EOW, Delhi Police and was forwarded by. K.K Vyas, Deputy Commissioner of Police, EOW Crime Branch, Delhi vide letter No. 2540/SODCP/EOW seeking necessary legal action regarding illegal gratification demanded by and paid to senior Income Tax Officers. FIR bearing no 152/2011 dated 29.06.2012 was registered at P.S Moti Nagar, New Delhi, and pursuant to the alleged disclosure statement of Ulhas Prabhakar (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") made in FIR baring no 152/2011, RC AC1 2013 A0001 dated 09.01.2013 was registered by CBI, AC1, New Delhi under section 120B IPC and under sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of PC Act. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIDHI Signing Date:16.01.2024 CRL.M.C.6183/2019 Page 2 15:25:42 2.1 It is alleged that the accused namely Ulhas Prabhakar @ Lokeshawar Dev along with his wife Priyanka Dev were running a firm under name and style of M/s Stock Guru India having its registered office at 58/A1, Lisa Tower, Rama Road, Moti Nagar, Delhi, They had guaranteed to provide a 20% return per month up to six months on the principal amount followed by a subsequent refund of the principal amount to the seventh month, by prudent and sourced based investments in the share market. However, instead of refunding
2 imprisonment for a period of 01 year and pay fine of Rs.40 Lakhs, payable as compensation jointly and severally with coconvict Yogesh Chhabra, to the respondent (complainant before Ld. Trial Court). For the sake of convenience, both parties shall be referred as their original position before the Ld. Trial Court, i.e. as complainant and accused. 2. The facts relevant for deciding the present appeal, in brief are as follows. The complainant presented the cheques in question, one cheque dated 20.11.2017 issued by deceased accused Shiv Saran and signed by deceased accused, which cheque was dishonored for the reason 'payment stopped' vide memo dated 08.01.2018. Another cheque dated 30.12.2017 issued by deceased accused Shiv Saran and signed by deceased accused, which cheque was dishonored for the reason 'payment stopped' vide memo dated 04.01.2018. Thereafter, legal notice was issued to the accused dated 01.02.2018. Thereafter, the accused persons failed to make payment to complainant and the complaint was filed before Ld. Trial Court. 3. After recording of presummoning evidence, the Ld. Trial Court summoned accused and other coaccused vide order dated 10.05.2018. Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C was given to accused alongwith coaccused on 22.03.2023, and notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was given to the partnership firm Chetan Hospitality, on 31.05.2023 through Promila Saran (acquitted vide the impugned judgment) in which he pleaded not guilty and stated that the cheques in question were not issued by him and do not carry his signatures. Permission to cross examine complainant was granted by court vide order dated 31.05.2023. Complainant produced further documents in postsummoning evidence and accordingly he was CA 107/25 M/S Chetan Hospitality & Anr. Vs. Alok Aggarwal 3 examined, crossexamined and discharged on 24.10.2024 and on the same day complainant's evidence was closed. Statement of accused alongwith coaccused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 11.12.2024, in which, he stated that he will not lead defence evidence. He also stated that the cheques were not issued by him and did not bear his signatures. Thereafter, final arguments were addressed and the impugned judgment and order on sentence were passed against the accused. Complainant relied upon the following documents in their respective evidence during trial S.NO. DOCUMENTS EXHIBITS 1. Affidavit dated 14.03.2018 and Ex.CW1/A and Ex. affidavit dated 21.09.2023 CW1/A1. 2. The original MoU dated 05.05.2016 is Ex.CW1/1 marked as 3. The original cheque bearing no. 469602 Ex.CW1/2 dated 20.11.2017 drawn on Canara Bank for Rs. 10 lacs is 4. The mutual settlement agreement dated Ex.CW1/3 04.12.2017 between the accused persons and the deponent is 5. Original cheque bearing no. 469614 Ex.CW1/4 dated 30.12.2017 for Rs. 10 lacs is 6. Original memo dated 08.01.2018 of the Ex.CW1/5 memo of HDFC Bank is 7. The original memo dated 04.01.2018 of Ex.CW1/6 the HDFC Bank is 8.
Course Ring Road, Rajkot360 Colony, Rajkot360 001 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADRPT 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. No. 01&02/RJT/2023 (a/o ITA No.134 & 135/Rjt/2023) (िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: (200708 & 200809) Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai The Income Tax Officer, Ward Thavrani, 4 Parsana Nagar, Shri 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, 5th Floor, Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Room No. 517, Race Course Ring Colony, Rajkot360 001 Vs. Road, Rajkot360001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADRPT 5807 E (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 16/RJT/2019 (िनधारणवष / Assessment Year: (201011) Damjibhai Lekharj Tharvani Income Tax Officer, Ward C/o. Sarda & Sarda, CAs, 1st Floor, 1(2)(4), Aaykar Bhavan, 5th Vs. Floor, Room No. 506, Race "Sakar" Opp. Rajkumar College, Dr. Course Ring Road, Rajkot Radhakrishnan Road, Rajkot360 001 1 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI Rajkot 360001 360 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 31,32,33/RJT/2019 (िनधारण वष / Assessment Year: (200910 to 201112) Incometax Officer, Ward2, Shree Damjibhai Lekhraj Thavrani, Junagadh Incometax Office, 302Sai Darsan Apartment, Bhutnath Chambers, Opp. Vs. Adarshnagar2, Joshipura, Bahauddin College, College Junagadh362 001 Road, Junagadh 362 001 थायीलेखास.ं /जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. No. 02 to 04/RJT/2019 (a/o ITA Nos.31 to 33/RJT/2019) (िनधारण वष / Assessment Years: (200910 to 201112) Shree Damjibhai Lekhraj Thavrani, Incometax Officer, Ward2, 302Sai Darsan Apartment, Junagadh Incometax Office, Adarshnagar2, Joshipura, Bhutnath Chambers, Opp. Junagadh362 001 Vs. Bahauddin College, College Road, Junagadh 362 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No. 171/RJT/2015 (िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: (200607) Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Asstt. Commissioner of Bhatiya 301, UVI Palace, Vs. Income Tax Central Circle Wing 1, Opp. Gitanjali 1, Rajkot College, Sadhu Vasvani 2 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI Road, Rajkot थायी ले खा सं /.जीआइ आर सं / .PAN/GIR No.: AIRPB 2097 F (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./IT(SS)A No. 01 to 06 /Rjt/2018 (िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: (200708 to 201213) Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Asstt. Commissioner of Bhatiya Income Tax Central Circle Vs. 1, Rajkot 301, UVI Palace, Wing 1, Opp. Gitanjali College, Sadhu Vasvani Road, Rajkot 360 001 थायी ले खा सं /.जी आइ आर सं /.PAN/GIR No.: AIRPB 2097 F (अपीलाथ /Appe
period of 180 days prescribed in Section 8 of the Act of 2006 cannot be held to be mandatory. He relies upon (2017) Volume 3 Calcutta Law Journal 253 (National Projects Construction Corporation Limited & Anr. Versus West Bengal State Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Ors.) and submits that, notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties a reference under the Act of 2006 is maintainable. In support of the same contention he relies upon (2014) Volume 4 Allahabad Law Journal 52 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others) and (2013) Volume 1 ILR Punjab & Haryana 709 (Welspun Corp
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Appearance: MR BS PATEL SR.ADV. WITH MR NILAY H PATEL(7856) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR AMAR N BHATT(160) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 Date : 04/07/2024 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr.B.S. Patel, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Nilay Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner bank and Mr.Amar Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Reserve Bank of India. Page 1 of 78 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:59:16 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined 2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Amar Bhatt, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent Reserve Bank of India . 3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned directive dated 25.09.2023 issued by the respondent bank under Section 35A read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short, the "Act of 1949") vide Directive No.AMD.DOS.SSM.No.S1053/1103039/ 20232024, which is duly annexed at AnnexureA. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a co operative bank registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, the "Act of 1961") and regulated by the Reserve Bank of India under the Act of 1949. The petitioner bank is incorporated under the banking laws framed under the Act of 1961 on 01.05.1971 and has been serving the society by availing the banking service. The petitioner bank has a strong financial condition and serving to approximately 11844 savings account holders, 1938 current account holders and having 2691 F.Ds. On 13.05.2022, a new board was appointed in the petitioner bank and in March, 2023, inspection was carried out by the respondent bank wherein, no adverse inference was drawn by the authorized officer of the respondent bank. The petitioner bank has approximately total payables worth Rs.46,18,53,673/, which includes Fixed Deposits, Current Accounts, Savings Bank Deposits and Recurring Deposits and on the other hand, the petitioner bank has total receivables and assets worth Rs.94,56,30,445/, which clearly depicts the strong financial position of the petitioner bank. The copy of the sheet, showing payables, receivable and assets of the petitioner bank, is duly produced at Page 2 of 78 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:59:16 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined Annexure 'C'. 4.1. It is the case of the petitioner