abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
1 State of Maharashtra. Through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai400032. 2 Anti Terrorist Squad, Mumbai. Through Additional Director General, Additional CP South Region Compound, Opp.Hume High School, Mumbai400008. 3 Union of India. Through Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi110001. 4 National Investigation Agency. Through Ministry of Home Affairs, 4th Floor, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Center, New Delhi110025. ..RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1325 OF 2012 Major Ramesh Upadhyay s/o Late Shivji Upadhyay, ::: Downloaded on 27/11/2013 20:25:34 ::: *2* wp.4049.1325.12.con.sxw Age : 60 years, Profession Retired Army Officer, Permanent Resident of Pune. Presently lodged at Taloja Central Prison, New Mumbai. ..PETITIONER Versus 1 Union of India. Through N.I.A., New Delhi. 2 Government of Maharashtra. Through A.T.S., Mumbai. ..RESPONDENTS ............. Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Advocate a/w Ms.Gunjan Mangla i/by Mr.Ganesh Sovani, for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4049/2012. Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, appointed Advocate for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1325/2012. Mr.D.J.Khambatta, Advocate General a/w Mrs.P.H.Kantharia and Mr.J.P.Yagnik, for the Respondent/State of Maharashtra. Mr.Kevic Setalwad, Additional Solicitor General of India, a/w Mahek Chheda, Mr.Som Sinha, Mr.Sumit Patni, i/by Mr.Dhiren Shah, for the Union of India. Mr.A.Mariarputham, Special P.P., a/w Ms.Rohini Salian, Special P.P., a/w Mr.Anand Sakhadeve, PP, for the NIA, Respondent No.4 in WP/4049/2012 and Respondent No.1 in WP/1325/2012. ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & S.B.SHUKRE, JJ. Reserved on : 23rd August, 2013. Pronounced on : 11th October, 2013. Judgment (Per S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.): 1 These Writ Petitions raise the issue of constitutional validity ::: Downloaded on 27/11/2013 20:25:34 ::: *3* wp.4049.1325.12.con.sxw of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Act 34 of 2008) (for short "NIA Act"). 2 Hence, RULE. The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 Since both Writ Petitions involve common questions, they are being decided by this common judgment. For properly appreciating the ar
1. Union of India, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, represented through its Secretary 2. Member Secretary, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Director of Industries, Konkan Region, Office Complex Building, Opposite Mulund Check Naka, Wagle Estate Corner, Thane400604 3. M/s Indiana Engineering Works (Bombay Private Limited, Indiana House, Makwana Road, Marol Naka, P.B. No.7409, Andheri (East), Mumbai400059 ....... Opp. Parties Advocates appeared: For Petitioner : Ms. Pami Rath, Senior Advocate being assisted by Ipsit Acharya, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Durga Prasad Nanda, Senior Advocate being assisted by Suvalaxmi Devi, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.3 CORAM : JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Date of Hearing 04.04.2025 :: Date of Judgment 18.06.2025 W.P.(C) No.22236 OF 2014 Page 1 of 43 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 18Jun2025 17:47:27 JUDGMENT K.R.Mohapatra, J; 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. PetitionerM/s Odisha Mining Corporation Limited (for brevity 'OMC') has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a direction to quash and set aside the proceeding in IFC Case No.1 of 2006 initiated by the Industries Facilitation Council, Thane (for brevity 'IFC') and consequential letter dated 30th January, 2014 (Annexure7) issued by Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Konkon Region, Thane (for brevity 'Council') communicating the order of the even date terminating the conciliation proceeding and initiating arbitration proceeding under Section 18 (3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for brevity, 'MSMED Act, 2006') and letter dated 23rd July, 2014 (Annexure9) communicating that the IFC, Thane had jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding in question. Petitioner, by way of amendment to the Writ Petition also assailed the ex parte award dated 15th November, 2014 (Annexure10) passed
Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade , SJM Towers, 18, Sheshadri Mumbai400 005 Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009 P AN No. AACP8925G Appellant .. Respondent CO No.80/Mum/2015 (Arising out of 6648 /Mum/2012 for AY 200506) Tata Consultancy Services Asst. Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax, Large Tax (Formerly M/s TCS Business Payer Unit, Transformation Solutions Ltd.) Vs. Centre1 28 t h Floor, W orld SJM Towers, 18, Sheshadri Trade Centre, Cuffe Road, Gandhinagar, Parade, Mumbai 400 005 Bangalore 560 009 P AN No. AACP8925G Appellant .. Respondent Revenue by .. S/Shri Jayant Kumar & Saurabh Deshpande, DRs Assessee by .. Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Forum Mehta, ARs Date of hearing .. 01082017 Date of pronouncement .. 18102017 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Revenue and CO by the assessee are arising out of the order of CIT(A)15, Mumbai, in Appeal No. CIT(A) 15/Arr.194/1213 dated 23082012. The Assessment was framed by ACIT, Circle12(4), Bangalore for the A.Y. 200506 vide order dated 28th ITA No . 6 6 48 / Mu m /2 0 12 & CO No. 8 0/ Mu m/ 2 01 5 M/ s Tat a Co ns ult an cy S e r vi ce s Ltd . ( A . Y: 2 00 5 0 6) November 2008 under section 143(3) read with section 92 CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The first inter connected issues in this appeal of Revenue and the CO of the assessee is as regards to allowing benefit of ±5% in the computation of arm's length price under section 92C(2A) of the Act. For this Revenue has raised following grounds No. 1 and 2: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances or the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the benefit of +1 5% in computation of Arm's Length Price under second proviso of section 92C(2) of Income Tax Act. 1961, without appreciating the retrospective amendment made by subsection 2A of section 92C of the IT Act. 1961. "2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to exclude the company Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., from the set of comparables taken or Benchmarking the IT and ITES segment for computation of Arm's Length Price on Account of Transfer Pricing adjustment." Assessee has raised following ground for exclusion of the comparables: "1.1. On the facts and in circumstances of case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Apepals)15, Mumbai[CIT(A)] has erred in upholding the action of the TPO / AO in including the following companies that are dissimilar to that of the Respondent: 1. Bodhtree Consulting Limited. 2. Sankhya Infotech Limited; Page 2 of 25 ITA No . 6 6 48 / Mu m /2 0 12 & CO No. 8 0/ Mu m/ 2 01 5 M/ s Tat a Co ns ult an cy S e r vi ce s Ltd . ( A . Y: 2 00 5 0 6) 3. Foursoft Limited; 4. Thirdware Solutions Limited; 5. Tata Elxi Limited; 6. Flextronics Limited; 7. Infosys Limited;
GUPTA POWER INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Appearance: MR. MAULIK G. NANAVATI with MS. MANVI DAMLE AND MR. KISHAN PATEL FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR SAURABH G AMIN(2168) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.4.2022 passed by the Commercial Court, 5 th Additional District Judge, Mehsana in rejecting the application Page 1 of 39 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Thu Dec 26 2024 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 26 21:37:07 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1728/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2024 undefined filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act, 1996') challenging the arbitral award dated 30.07.2016 passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSMEFC) in MSMEFC Case No. 26 of 2014. The application under Section 34 has been rejected on the ground that the Court at Mehsana has no jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the application, inasmuch as, the territorial jurisdiction to challenge the MSME Facilitation Council's award is with the Court in the State of Odisha as the seat of MSMEF Council would be the seat of arbitration in the spirit of Section 18 read with section 24 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED Act, 2006). 2. It was held by the Commercial Court that the seat of arbitration is fixed by virtue of Section 18 of the Act' 2006 at a place where MSMEF Arbitrator has jurisdiction, which is the
Delhi High Court Mukesh Kumar Chauhan And Others vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 April, 2012 * % Judgment reserved on: 10.4.2012 Judgment pronounced on: 17.4.2012 + W.P.(C) 2251522518/2005 & CM No.1469214694/2005, 6787/2006, 7955/2006, 15087/2008 & 1536/2012 Indian Telecom Service Association & Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2221722257/2005 & CMs No.14646/2005, 14648/2005 Arun Gupta And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2225822463/2005 & CMs No.14652/2005 & 14655/2005 Mukesh Kumar Chauhan And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 22783/2005 S.K.Talware ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents W.P(C) 2225822463/2005 Page 1 of 26 + W.P.(C) 2278422788/2005 & CM No.16074/2005 Pushpender Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2278922847/2005 & CMs No.12817/2006, 13732/2006 & 14503/2006 Akhilesh Trivedi ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 23093/2005 Rakesh Kumar Tripathi ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2312423126/2005 Awadhesh K. Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents W.P(C) 2225822463/2005 Page 2 of 26 + W.P.(C) 23655/2005 Gajender Kumar Yadav ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1238012382/2006 & CMs No.9467/2006, 11074/2008 & 14543/2008 MTNL Executive Welfare Association ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Another ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 17618/2006 & CMs No. 1458814589/2006 & 170/2007 A.K.Sharma ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 3414/2007 & CM No.63966397/2007 Vinay Saran ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. VSR Krishna and Ms. Swati Sharma in WP(C) 2221522257/2005 Mr. Yasoban Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Srivastava, Mr. Ashish W.P(C) 2225822463/2005 Page 3 of 26 Sindhu and Mr. Arvind Tiwari in WP(C) 22789/2005 Mr. A.K.Srivastava and Mr. Ashish Sindhu in WP(C) 22783/2005, 22784/2005, 22789/2005, 23093/2005, 23124/2005 & 23655/2005 For Respondent : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. B.V.Niren, Mr Prasouk Jain, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma & Mr. Pratap for UoI Mr. Ravi Sikri with Mr. Vaibhav Kalra for MTNL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions are directed against the orders dated 21.10.2005 and 31.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No. 1963/2005 and other connected OAs. 2. Pursuant to it
Delhi High Court Pushpender Singh And Others vs Union Of India on 17 April, 2012 * % Judgment reserved on: 10.4.2012 Judgment pronounced on: 17.4.2012 + W.P.(C) 2251522518/2005 & CM No.1469214694/2005, 6787/2006, 7955/2006, 15087/2008 & 1536/2012 Indian Telecom Service Association & Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2221722257/2005 & CMs No.14646/2005, 14648/2005 Arun Gupta And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2225822463/2005 & CMs No.14652/2005 & 14655/2005 Mukesh Kumar Chauhan And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 22783/2005 S.K.Talware ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents W.P(C) 2278422788/2005 Page 1 of 26 + W.P.(C) 2278422788/2005 & CM No.16074/2005 Pushpender Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2278922847/2005 & CMs No.12817/2006, 13732/2006 & 14503/2006 Akhilesh Trivedi ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 23093/2005 Rakesh Kumar Tripathi ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2312423126/2005 Awadhesh K. Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents W.P(C) 2278422788/2005 Page 2 of 26 + W.P.(C) 23655/2005 Gajender Kumar Yadav ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1238012382/2006 & CMs No.9467/2006, 11074/2008 & 14543/2008 MTNL Executive Welfare Association ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Another ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 17618/2006 & CMs No. 1458814589/2006 & 170/2007 A.K.Sharma ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 3414/2007 & CM No.63966397/2007 Vinay Saran ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. VSR Krishna and Ms. Swati Sharma in WP(C) 2221522257/2005 Mr. Yasoban Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Srivastava, Mr. Ashish W.P(C) 2278422788/2005 Page 3 of 26 Sindhu and Mr. Arvind Tiwari in WP(C) 22789/2005 Mr. A.K.Srivastava and Mr. Ashish Sindhu in WP(C) 22783/2005, 22784/2005, 22789/2005, 23093/2005, 23124/2005 & 23655/2005 For Respondent : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. B.V.Niren, Mr Prasouk Jain, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma & Mr. Pratap for UoI Mr. Ravi Sikri with Mr. Vaibhav Kalra for MTNL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions are directed against the orders dated 21.10.2005 and 31.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No. 1963/2005 and other connected OAs. 2. Pursuant to its decision
1. Chaitanya Arora, ) Individual, Indian Inhabitant ) Having address at H19/81, Top Floor, ) Rohini Sector7, North West Delhi, ) Delhi110085. ) 2. Chaitanya Enterprises ) Having address at H19/81, Top Floor, ) Rohini Sector7, North West Delhi, ) Delhi110085. ) 3. Sonu Shah ) Being the sole proprietor of ) Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on 17/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on 18/10/2025 00:27:08 ::: 2/53 iaL1827825.doc Sonu Enterprises, ) Ground Floor, Kh. No.957, ) Village Kirari Suleman Nagar, ) Landmark Near Chopal, ) New Delhi India 110086 ) WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5889 OF 2025 Mr. Janak Dwarkadas a/w Namrata Vinod, Rashmin Khandekar, Pooja Jain, Bhavi Gada. Samaruddhi Naik, Suhail Shariff, Sherin Baby and Mohammad Omar Hashmi for Plaintiff. Mr.Hiren Kamod a/w Vaibhav Keni, Neha Iyer, Prem Khullar, Vatsala Batra, Gaurav Gogia, Anees Patel, Aviral Srivastava, Rajat A. i/b Legasis Partners for Defendant. Mr. Deepak Bhalerao, Second Assistant to Court Receiver, present. CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. RESERVED ON: 30TH SEPTEMBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 15TH OCTOBER 2025 JUDGMENT: 1. This Court had, on 30th June, 2025, passed an ex parte ad interim Order inter alia restraining the Defendants from using the trade mark "DOCTOR HEALTH SUPER SOFT/ DOCTOR SUPER SOFT/ DOCTOR EXTRA SOFT" in relation to the sale of footwear. 2. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, on being served with the ex parte order have filed an Affidavit seeking to have the ex parte ad interim Order vacated under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on 17/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on 18/10/2025 00:27:08 ::: 3/53 iaL1827825.doc (CPC), on the ground that the Plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands since the Plaintiff had obtained the ex parte order by deliberately suppressing material facts and documents from this Court. Submissions of Mr. Kamod on behalf of the Defendants 3. Mr. Kamod, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff had suppressed the three most material facts from this Court and had on that basis not only created a false sense of urgency but also obtained relief to which the Plaintiff was not entitled. He then pointed out that the Plaintiff had suppressed the fact that (I) the Plaintiff's trade mark registration
2 C.C.5258/2017 Accused : Sri.R.Srinivas, Major, Proprietor: GIRIJA ENTERPRISES, No.8, Appajappa Agrahara, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru 560 018. { By Sri.N.Jaiprakash Rao Advocate } Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Accused is Convicted Date of Order : 01122022 JUDGMENT The present complaint is filed under section 2(d) read with section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act"). 3 C.C.5258/2017 02. The factual matrix of the complaint is summarized as under; It is averred in the complaint that, the accused being well known to the complainant for the past several years has borrowed hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/ from the complainant on 16.02.2015 by way of cash for business purpose and has executed pronote and acknowledgement about receipt of said loan amount. Further alleged that, to repay the said loan amount, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.005397 dated 17.04.2017 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Chamrajpet Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. The complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker i.e., Corporation Bank, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru, but it returned unpaid with banker's endorsement dated 18.04.2017 as "Payment Stopped by Drawer". On 09.05.2017, the complainant has issued demand notice to the accused and the same was duly served on 12.05.2017. 4 C.C.5258/2017 The accused has issued reply dated 24.05.2017 to the notice cuased by the complainant. In spite of service of legal notice, the accused neither has paid the cheque amount nor has given any reply. On these grounds, it is sought to convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and grant compensation as per section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 03. On presentation of complaint, this court has verified the averments of complaint along with records and thereby had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. Thereby, as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in AIR 2014 SC 1983 in the case of Indian Bank Association and others V/s Union of India and others, the sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded as PW.1 and got exhibited nine documents at Ex.P.01 to 09. Having been made out the primafacie case, the complaint has been registered in Register No. III and issued process against the accused. 5 C.C.5258/2017 04. In response to the summons, the accused put his appearance before the court through his counsel and filed bail application under section 436 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has been enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation has been recorded and read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and intends to put forth his defense. On filing application by the complainant under section 145(1) of NI Act, sworn statement of the complainant has been treated as examinat
Delhi High Court Orders Vindhya Telelinks Limited vs Bharat Broadband Network Limited on 2 March, 2021 $~14 * + ARB.P. 541/2020 VINDHYA TELELINKS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through Mr Narender 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 C' was accepted on 21.07.2014. BBNL issued an Advance Purchase Order (APO) on the said date. After the petitioner had complied with the conditions mentioned in the APO, BBNL issued a Purchase Order (PO) for 'Package C' on 19.09.2014. 5. According to the petitioner, there was a change in classification of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL product in question resulting in a 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 C' 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 01.07.2020 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 functions of the CMD, BBNL or by whatever designation such an officer may be called (hereinafter referred to as the said officer), and if the CMD or the said