abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Amrapali Fincap Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellants : Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Johri, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma and Ms. Mrigangi Parul, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Kunal Godhwani and Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates for R3. Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Ajatshatru Singh Rawat, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari and Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates. Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha and Mr. Gautam Goel, Advocates for R1/RP. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1172 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Amrapali Fincap Ltd. ...Appellant(s) Versus Krit Narayan Mishra, RP, ...Respondent(s) JC World Hospitality (P) Ltd. & Ors Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Ajatshatru Singh Rawat, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari and Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Johri, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma and Ms. Mrigangi Parul, Advocates for R2 and R3. Mr. Kunal Godhwani and Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates for R2. Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha, Advocates for R1/RP. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1200 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Krit Narayan Mishra, RP, ...Appellant(s) JC World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Versus Amrapali Fincap Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha and Mr. Gautam Goel, Advocates. Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Johri, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma and Ms. Mrigangi Parul, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Mr. Gautam Goel and Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates for R2. Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Ajatshatru Singh Rawat, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari and Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates for R1. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1552 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Abishek Nath Sarvaria ...Appellant(s) Versus JC World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Johri, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma and Ms. Mrigangi Parul, Advocates. 2 of 74 For Respondents : Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Ajatshatru Singh Rawat, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates for R2. Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Gautam Goel and Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha, Advocates for R1. JUDGMENT ( 7th November, 2025 ) Ashok Bhushan, J. All these Appeals arises out of order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi, Court IV in IA No.6035 of 2024, IA No.1301 of 2025, IA No.850 of 2022 in CP (IB) No.256/ND/2019. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these Appeals are: 2.1. The Corporate Debtor M/s. J.C. World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. is an MSME engaged in developing Real Estate. By order dated 13.12.2019, the Corporate Debtor has been admitted to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on application filed by the Financial Creditors in Class under Section 7. Resolution Professional invited claim
Madras High Court The Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs M/S. N.C.C.Ltd on 30 July, 2020 2025:MHC:2775 1/24 Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 35 of 2022 Orders Reserved on : 03.12.2025 Pronouncing orders on : 08.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 35 of 2022 and A.Nos.376 & 1619 of 2022 The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, TNHB, Anna Nagar Circle, Rep.by its Superintending Engineer, Chennai 40 Petitioner(s) Vs M/s. N.C.C.Ltd, formerly M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd, No.190A, 7th and 8th Floor, Pettukola Towers, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 Respondent(s) PRAYER Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to set aside the award dated 30.07.2020. For Appellant(s): Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.Aravindran for Fox Mandal Associates For Respondent(s): Mr.P.J.Rishikesh https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/12/2025 05:47:37 pm ) 2/24 Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 35 of 2022 ORDER This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as ' the Act') by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging the Award passed by the Sole Arbitrator, dated 30.07.2020. 2.When this petition came up for admission on 09.03.2022, this Court passed the following order: Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 18.12.2020 assailing an 'arbitral award dated 30.07.2020 bearing reference O.P.No.215 of 2000' [hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of convenience and clarity] made by an 'Arbitral Tribunal' ['AT'] constituted by a sole Arbitrator. 2. Respondent before AT i.e., 'Tamil Nadu Housing Board' ['TNHB'] is the petitioner before this Section 34 Court and contractor who was claimant before AT is the lone respondent in the captioned matter. 3. Parties will be referred to as 'TNHB' and 'contractor' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 4. Captioned Arb OP is in the Admission Board and therefore it was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/12/2025 05:47:37 pm ) 3/24 Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 35 of 2022 heard out in accordance with 'The Madras High Court (Arbitration) Rules, 2020' [hereinafter 'MHC Arbitration Rules' for the sake of convenience and clarity] more particularly Rule 8 thereat and Clause 8 of the practice directions thereat. 5. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Mr.S.Aravindan, learned counsel of M/s.Fox Mandal & Associates (Law Firm) for petitionerTNHB, notwithstanding very many averments in
Bhagat Singh Kanwaria, Proprietor, M/s B.K. Enterprises, Plot no.F27, Amrapali Group of Companies Eng., Procurb, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Budha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh201301. ....Defendant Date of Institution : 25.09.2023 Final arguments : 16.05.2025 Date of decision : 20.05.2025 EXPARTE JUDGMENT 1. Judgment disposes off a commercial suit for recovery of Rs.17,55,239/, claimed to be unpaid balance against supply of electrical products to the defendant. CS (COMM) 1269/2023 S.N. ELECTEL PVT. LTD. Page no. 1 of 13 VS. BHATA SINGH KANWARIA 2. Shorn of avoidable details, the case of the plaintiff is that it is company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of distribution and wholesale trade of electrical products such as Electric wires and cables, Electrical MCB, Electrial RCCB, Electrical MCCB, Rotatory Handles, Distribution Boards etc. Sh. Siddhant Gupta, one of the directors of the plaintiffcompany is stated to be duly authorized to prosecute the present case vide Board Resolution dated 15.06.2020. The defendant, proprietor of M/s B.K. Enterprises, approached the plaintiff at its registered office through one of its representative for supply of certain electrical items at various sites in Delhi NCR. It is averred that on mutual negotiations, plaintiff company agreed to supply electrical goods required by the defendant at the site and raise invoice in respect thereof, and defendant would clear the payment within 45 days from the date of delivery of goods. 3. Plaintiff company, supplied the ordered goods on credit basis, in favour of defendant at the designated site for the period from July, 2020 till August, 2021 under invoices. It is averred that the said goods/ materials were duly received by the defendant without any complaint. Defendant made partpayments towards the accrued liability in the bank account of the plaintiff company for CS (COMM) 1269/2023 S.N. ELECTEL PVT. LTD. Page no. 2 of 13 VS. BHATA SINGH KANWARIA the aforesaid period. 4. It is averred that despite various partpayments having been made by defendant, the following invoices amounting to the tune of Rs.18,55,239/, remained unpaid: S. Invoice Date Invoice No. Invoice Amount No. (in Rs.) 1 15.06.2021 SNEPL/TI/0239 1,32,420/ 2 16.07.2021 SNEPL/TI/0418 18,880/ 3 17.07.2021 SNEPL/TI/0424 8,31,740/ 4 17.07.2021 SNEPL/TI/0095 4,09,165/ 5 24.07.2021 SNEPL/TI/0467 2,34,230/ 6 28.07.2021 SNEPL/TI/0119 83,689/ 7 31.07.2021 SNEPL/TI/0121 1,19,248/ 8 10.08.2021 SNEPL/TI/0536 9,408/ 9 16.08.2021 SNEPL/TI/0563 3,363/ 10 24.08.2021 SNEPL/TI/0614 13,096/ Grand Total 18,55,239/ 5. Defendant had issued following three cheques, each drawn upon Union Bank, Pitampura Branch, Delhi, towards partial discharge of the liability against the plaintiff company: S. Cheque No. Cheque Date Cheque Amount No. (in Rs.) 1 400137 20.08.2021 4,09,165/ 2 408622 30.08.2021 4,29,380/ 3 408623 15.09.2021 5,51,555/ However, the abovementioned cheques got dishonoured on presentation for encashment
FACTS OF THE CASE 2.​ ​ According to the complaint, the accused shared friendly relations with Sh. Vinod Mittal, Director of the complainant company and, in or around March 2013, approached him seeking financial assistance on account of his urgent monetary requirements, assuring that the amount would be repaid within one year. On the strength of the assurance and in view of the friendly relations, Vinod Mittal acceded to the request and advanced a sum of Rs.4,45,00,000/ to the accused as a shortterm loan, comprising four cheques of Rs.1 crore each dated 21.03.2013, 22.03.2013, 23.03.2013 and 25.03.2013, and one cheque of Rs.45,00,000/ dated 27.06.2013. In the beginning of August 2014, towards part repayment of the said liability, the accused issued cheque bearing No. 947001, dated 01.08.2014, for an amount of Rs.2,20,00,000/, drawn on Punjab National Bank, MSME Branch, New Delhi House, Connaught Place, New Delhi, in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the accused requested the complainant not to present the said cheque on the ground that he had not yet received the requisite funds and assured that the same would be available by October 2014. In the intervening period, the accused made a payment of Rs. 25,00,000/ on 09.06.2014, to the complainant company. However, upon representation of the said cheque towards the end of October 2014, the cheque was again dishonoured, leading to issuance of a legal demand notice dated 26.11.2014. Subsequently, on 28.11.2014, the accused again approached the complainant and assured that the earlier dishonour had occurred due to a mistake and that he would repay a sum of Rs.4,20,00,000/ towards discharge of his liability. In pursuance thereof, the accused issued cheque bearing No. 947000, dated 28.11.2014, for an amount of Rs.4,20,00,000/, drawn on Punjab National Bank, MSME Branch, New Delhi House, Connaught Place, New Delhi, in favour of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the "cheque in question"). However, despite presenting the cheque for encashment twice, the cheque was Digitally signed by ARVIND Ct. Cases.: 530881/2016 ARVIND TOMAR M/s Universal Blue Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raja Davinder Singh​ TOMAR Date: 2026.01.28 2/16 16:39:00 +0530 dishonoured for "Funds Insufficient" both the times. Believing he was deceived, the complainant got a legal notice dated 27.01.2015 served upon the accused, but the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory time limit, despite service of the said notice on 02.02.2015. Consequentl
1. M/s Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Resolution Professional Mr. Subodh Kumar Agarwal IBBI/IPA001/IPP00087/2001718/10183 Having its registered office at: Survey No. 64, Beside Shiparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. ...Respondent No. 1 Email: [email protected] 2. Committee of Creditors M/s Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 64, Beside Shiparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. Email: Not Available ...Respondent No. 2 3. Telangana State Tourism Corporation Limited Government of Telangana DBlock, 2nd floor, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081 Email : [email protected] ...Respondent No. 3 4. Shilparamam Arts, Crafts & Cultural Society Hi Tech City Main Road, Hitec City, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. 2 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 426, 430, 432 &710 of 2020 Email: [email protected] ...Respondent No. 4 5. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. II (NQ) Pte. Ltd. 77, Robinson Road #1300 Robinson 77, Singapore 068896 Email: [email protected] ...Respondent No. 5 Present For Appellants: Ms. Priya Kumar & Mr. Shivam Goel, Advocates For Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Mr. Aviral Singhal, Mr. D. Kapila, Adv. for SRA. Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate for R2. PCS, Manoj Kumar Koyalkar, Adv. for R3. Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr. Abhinav Mishra, Mr. Vaibhav Mendirata, Advocates for R4. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 430 of 2020 (Arising out of the Order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in I.A. No. 960 of 2019 in I.A. No. 32 of 2019 in C.P. (IB) No. 248/7/HDB/2017.) IN THE MATTER OF: Consolidated Engineering Company Through its Partner, Office at KBlock, Chaudhary Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110001. ...Appellant Versus 3 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 426, 430, 432 &710 of 2020 1. Subodh Kumar Agrawal Former Resolution Professional of Golden Jubilee Hotels Private Limited, 1, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 3rd Floor, Room No. 301, Kolkata 700013. ...Respondent No. 1 2. Golden Jubilee Hotels Private Limited Through Successful Resolution Applicant Survey No. 64, Beside Shilpakalavedika,, Shilparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. ...Respondent No. 2 3. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. II (NQ) Pte. Ltd. 77, Robinson Road #1300 Robinson 77, Singapore 068896 ...Respondent No. 3 Email: [email protected] 4. Committee of Creditors Golden Jubilee Hotels Private Limited Survey No. 64, Beside Shilpakalavedika, Shilparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad 500081. ...Respondent No. 4 Present For Appellants: Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee & Mr. Swapnil Pattanayak, Adv. For Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Mr. Aviral Singhal, Mr. D. Kapila, Adv. for SRA Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate for R4 4 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 426, 430, 432 &710 of 2020 With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 432 of 2020 (Arising out of the Order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderaba
Mumbai400021. Mumbai400021. PAN NO. AADCS 2973 A Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 201415 to 201819 & 202021 to 202122 DCIT Central Circle4(4), M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India 1410, Maker Chamber V, Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai400021. Mumbai400021. PAN NO. AADCS 2973 A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue by : Dr. Kishor Dhule, CITDR Date of He aring : 13/05/2024 Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2024 M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. 2 ITA Nos. 3491, 3474, 3473, 3472 & 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 ORDER PER BENCH The captioned appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income (Appeals)52, 52, Mumbai [in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)'] for assessment years 201415 2014 to 201819 and 202021 to 202122. Being common n issue in dispute disputes involved in these appeals, appeals same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 2. First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for assessment year 201415. 2014 15. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal in ITA No. 3491/Mum/2023 are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Learned Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment completed u/s.143(3) r.w. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. circumstances of the case as well as in law, the 2. On the facts and circumstances Learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the assessing officer to examine therealization of exports, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Act. circumstances of the case as well as in law, the 3. On the facts and circumstances Learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to the extent of Rs. u/s 69C of the Act, without considering the facts & 29,63,580/u/s circumstances of the case. M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. 3491, 3474, 3473, 3472 & 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 2.1 The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal in ITA No. 3606/Mum/2023 are reproduced as under: 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the addition of amortization on goodwill of Rs. 16,16,00,000/ to book profit for the purpose of MAT u/s 115JB of the Act, 1961." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards disallowance of exemption claimed u/s
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Limited, Through Managing Director Having Its Registered Office At Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, CScheme, Jaipur302005 (Rajasthan). 3. MSTC Limited, Through Its ChairmanCumManaging Director Having Its Branch Office At Room No.114, First Floor, BSNL Building, Lalkothi, Behind Nagar Nigam, Jaipur302015 (Rajasthan). Respondents Connected With S.B. Amar Prem And Sons, Through Its Sole Proprietor Mohit Sarin Having Its Registered Office At 334, Govindam Commercial Hub, (Downloaded on 13/01/2022 at 09:48:17 PM) (2 of 58) [CW91/2022] Old Rto Road, Bhilwara, Rajasthan 311001 Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Limited, Through Managing Director Having Its Registered Office At Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, CScheme, Jaipur 302005 (Rajasthan) 3. Mstc Limited, Through Its ChairmanCumManaging Director Having Its Branch Office At Room No. 114, First Floor, Bsnl Building, Lalkothi, Behind Nagar Nigam, Jaipur 302015 (Rajasthan) Respondents S.B. Shri Mahipal Transport Company, Through Proprietor Vijendra Singh Son Of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of 61, Champa Nagar, Beawar 305901 (Rajasthan) Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Limited, Through Chairman Cum Chief Secretary Of The State Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Limited, 4 Meera Marg, Udaipur. 4. Group General Manager (Lignite), RSMM Limited, SBU And PC Lignite, Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 5. MSTC Limited (Govt Of India Enterprises), Through Manager, Room No. 114, First Floor, Bsnl Building, Lal Khoti Behind Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, Pin 302015 Respondents (Downloaded on 13/01/2022 at 09:48:17 PM) (3 of 58) [CW91/2022] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vipul Sharda Adv., & Mr. Deepak Bishnoi Adv. & Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa Adv., through VC. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhi, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma Adv., through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 12/01/2022 1. These writ petitions since involve common questions, hence with consent of the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by the present order. 2. For adjudication of the questi
H.P. Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & ors. ....Respondents The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes For the Petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Mr. r Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Addl. A.G., Mr. J. S. Guleria, Dy.A.G. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________________________ Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs: A. That, a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ may be issued to set aside the notice issued by Respondent No. 1 dated 22.07.2021 (Annexure P 8) as being against the mandate of under Rule 4 (v) and 4 (vi) of the MSME Rules, 2018 AND/OR Section 2(n) r/w 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ::: Downloaded on 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 2 chapter 5 of the MSME Act, 2006 AND/OR Section 18(3) of the MSME Act r/w Section 61(2) of the Arbitration & . Conciliation Act, 1996 r/w the enabling provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 AND/OR also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;. B. That, a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ may be issued to set aside the order dated 02.02.2022 (Annexure P11) passed by the Respondent No.1 as being against the mandate of under Rule 4 (v) and 4 (vi) of the MSME Rules, 2018 AND/OR Section 2(n) r/w chapter 5 of the MSME Act, 2006 AND/OR Section 18(3) of the MSME Act r/w Section 76(b) & Section 10 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 AND/OR also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; C. That, a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ may be issued to set aside the order dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure P16) passed by the Respondent No.1 to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioner, being against the mandate under Rule 4 (v) and 4 (vi) the MSME Rules, 2018 AND/OR Section 2(n) r/w chapter 5 of the MSME Act, 2006 AND/OR Section 18(3) the MSME Act r/w Section 77 the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 AND also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;. D. That a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ may be issued to set aside the order dated 02.07.2022 (Annexure P18) passed by the Respondent No.2 as being against the mandate of Section 18(3) & 18 (5) r/w Section 24 of the MSME Act AND/OR Section 14 (a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 AND/OR also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." ::: Downloaded on 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 3 . 2 Brief facts, as pleaded in the petition, are that on 11.07.2012, the petitionercompany placed a work order for engaging manpower with respondent No. 3 at its Lam