abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Delhi High Court Aksh Optifibre Limited vs Nantong Siber Communication Co Ltd on 24 May, 2024 $~17 * % Date of Decision: 24.05.2024 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 101/2024 and CM Nos.31320/2024 & 31321/2024 AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr Vikas Goel, Mr Ritesh Sharma, Mr Harmanbir Singh Sandhu and Ms Anisha Dahiya, Advocates. versus NANTONG SIBER COMMUNICATION CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Jitender Chaudhary and Ms Shilpa, Advocates. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the A&C Act) impugning a judgment dated 15.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned judgment) rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP (COMM) 68/2023 captioned Aksh Optifibre Ltd. v. Nantong Siber Communication Co. Limited. The appellant had filed the said application under Section 34 of the A&C Act impugning an arbitral award dated 08.11.2022 (hereafter the impugned award) passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a sole arbitrator (hereafter the Arbitral Tribunal). Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL FAO(OS) (COMM) 101/2024 Page 1 of 11 Signing Date:28.05.2024 2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that had arisen between the parties in connection with certain purchase orders placed by the appellant on the respondent company. There is no dispute that the respondent company had, after receiving the said purchase orders, delivered the goods and had also raised the invoices for the same. 3. The appellant contends that the said goods were in turn supplied to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). However, the payments from BSNL were not forthcoming. It is the appellant's case that it had apprised the respondent that the goods purchased by it were for manufacturing of optical fiber cable to be supplied to BSNL. The appellant also claimed that it had informed the respondent that there was a delay in receipt of payments from BSNL and the same had resulted in the delay of payments to the respondent. 4. The respondent invoked the arbitration agreement between the parties by issuing a notice requesting for appointment of an arbitrator. It also approached the Supreme Court under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes. 5. By an order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Arbitration Petition (C) No. 27/2021, the Supreme Court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 6. The Arbitral Tribunal had found in favour of the respondent and had awarded a sum of USD 194,336.91 along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the due dates of the invoices as set out in paragraph 4 of the impugned award. The relevant portion of paragraph 4 of the impugned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL FAO(OS) (COMM) 101/2024 Page 2 of 11 Signing Date:28.05.2024 award and the dispositive portion of the impugned award is set out below: "4 The undisputed facts l
Delhi High Court Piya Bajwa vs Micro And Small Enterprises Facilition ... on 29 January, 2021 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:02.02.2021 22:57:50 $~23 * Date of decision: 29th January, 2021 + W.P.(C) 1134/2021 & CM APPL. 3201/2021 PIYA BAJWA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Nikilesh R., Advocate. (M: 9810460429) versus MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITION CENTRE AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh and Mr. Shok Chandra, Advocates. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing. 2. The Petitioner has impugned letter dated 31st December, 2020 issued by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter, 'Facilitation Council') by which the Petitioner has been called to participate in the conciliation process and also file a reply. 3. The impugned communication issued by the Facilitation Council dated 31st December, 2020 reads as under: "The MSEF Council, Delhi is in receipt of a reference filed u/s 18(1) of the MSMED Act, 2006 by the Claimant M/s Sharp Travels (India) Ltd., Application/Temp No. DL08E0001555/S/00122 against the outstanding dues of Rs. 308307 which is to be paid by you to the Claimant. I am directed to inform you that the MSEF Council, Delhi has decided that the conciliation process should be taken up first before release of outstanding dues to the Claimant, failing which a Notice to personally appear before the Council Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1134/2021 Page 1 of 6 Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:02.02.2021 21:53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:02.02.2021 22:57:50 will be served to you for taking further necessary action in the matter. Further, I am to inform you that as per Section 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006 the Respondent will be liable to pay the compound interest with monthly rests to the supplier on that a
Income Tax Officer (OSD), Company Circle V (2), 4th Floor, Main Building, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent/Appellant in both TCAs. Prayer in Tax Case (Appeal) No.1370 of 2009: Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'B' dated 03.07.2009 in I.T.A.No.2156/MDS/2007. Prayer in Tax Case (Appeal) No.1371 of 2009: Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'B' dated 03.07.2009 in I.T.A.No.2146/MDS/2007. 1/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 10:44:32 am ) T.C.A.Nos.1370 and 1371 of 2009 For Appellant : Mr.N.V.Balaji (in both) For Respondent : Mr.Ravikumar (in both) Senior Standing Counsel COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of this Court was delivered by C.SARAVANAN, J.) By this Common Order, both these Tax Case Appeals are being disposed of. 2. These Tax Case Appeals were admitted by this Court on 14.12.2009. At the time of admission, the following Questions of Law were framed as Substantial Questions of Law by this Court for being answered: “(i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant concerning the computation of deduction under Section 10A and 80HHE? (ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the exclusion of expenditure incurred in foreign currency in relation to onsite software development from the purview of export turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 10A and 80HHE of the Income Tax Act? (iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not noting the distinction between 'manufacture of computer software' and the provision of 'technical services'? (iv)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in remitting back to the Assessing Officer without giving its finding on the issue relating to the exclusion of the component of unrealized sale proceeds both from export turnover and total turnover? 2/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 10:44:32 am ) T.C.A.Nos.1370 and 1371 of 2009
Bombay High Court Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 November, 2012 1 Cri.Appeal 97212 Tilak CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.972 OF 2012 IN MCOC SPECIAL CASE No.21 of 2006 1. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil ) Ansari, Aged about 38 yrs, ) Indian Inhabitant, Occ.Business, ) Residing at & PostBasupatti, ) Dist.Madhubani, State of Bihar. ) 2 Dr.Tanvir Ahmed Mohd.Ibrahim Ansari, Aged about 38 yrs, ) ) Indian Inhabitant, ) Occ.Doctor by profession ) Residing at BIT Block, Bldg No.4/31, ) 2nd floor, Mohd.Ansari Siddiqui Rd, ) Momin Pura, Agripada, ) Mumbai 400 011. ) 3 Mohd.Faisal Ataur Rehman Shaikh ) Aged about 38 yrs, Occ.Business ) Residing at Tirupati Apt, 'A' Wing, ) 2nd floor, Flat 203, Naya Nagar, ) Mira Road, Dist.Thane and Flat 24, ) Luck Villa, Kant Wadi, Perry Cross ) Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai 50. ) 4 Ehtesham Kutubuddin Siddiqui ) Aged about 31 yrs, Indian Inhabitant ) Occ.Business, resident of 202, ) Safiya Manzil, Naya Nagar, Mira ) Road (East) District Thane ) ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 19:25:48 ::: 2 Cri.Appeal 97212 5 Mohammad Majid Mohammad Shafi ) Aged about 34 yrs, Indian Inhabitant ) Occ.Business, resident of 17/2/H/6, ) Canal West Road, Raja Bazar ) Kolkata 700009. ) 6 Shaikh Mohammad Ali Alam Shaikh ) Aged about 43 yrs, Indian Inhabitant ) Occ.Business, Residing at Plot no.33, ) T Line, Room No.2, Govandi, ) Shivaji Nagar, Mumbai 400 043. ) 7 Mohammad Sajid Margub Ansari ) Aged about 35 yrs, Indian Inhabitant ) Occ.Business, Residing at 101, ) Saba Parveen Apts, Pooja Nagar Rd, ) Mira Road, District Thane ) 8 Abdul Wahid Din Mohammad Shaikh ) Aged about 36 yrs, Indian Inhabitant ) Occ.Teacher, Residing at 6/7, Khan ) & Sanghvi Lane, Amrit Nagar, ) Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai 400086. ) 9 Muzzamil Ataur Rehman Shaikh ) Aged about 28 yrs, Indian Inhabitant ) Occ.Service, Residing at Tirupati ) nd Aprts, 'A' Wing, 2 floor Flat 203, ) Naya Nagar, Mira Road ) District Thane ) 10 Suhail Mehmood Shaikh ) Aged about 42 yrs, Indian Inhabitant ) Occ.Business, Residing at House ) No.1538, Galli No.16, Bhimpura, ) Lashkar, Camp Area, Pune. ) ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 19:25:48 ::: 3 Cri.Appeal 97212 11 Zameer Ahmed Latifur Shaikh ) Aged about 38 yrs, Indian Inhabitant ) Occ.Business, Residing at Vallabhbhai) Patel Nagar, Baithi chawl, 'L' Block ) Room No.100, Lotus, Worli, ) Mumbai 400 018. ) 12 Naveed Hussain Khan s/o Rasheed ) Hussain Khan, Aged about 32 yrs, ) Indian Inhabitant, Occ.Service, ) Residing at A/604, Topaz Ap
PunjabHaryana High Court Harbhajan Singh Bajwa vs Jasdev Singh on 10 September, 2014 ...... Civil Revision No.6575 of 2011 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:10.9.2014 Harbhajan Singh Bajwa ...Petitioner v. Jasdev Singh Respondent .... ..... Present: Mr. Manmohan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.B. Sethi, Mr. M.P. Gupta and Mr. H.S. Bajwa, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondent. ..... Inderjit Singh, J. Harbhajan Singh Bajwapetitioner/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition against Jasdev Singhrespondent/defendant No.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer for setting aside the impugned joint order dated 3.10.2011 (AnnexureP.1) passed in Civil Suit No.3/2712009/6.1.2010 titled as "Harbhajan Singh Bajwa v. Jasdev Singh and others" by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A. S. Nagar (Mohali) being void ab initio with a direction to the said Court to take final decision on the application filed under Order 7 Rule 6 C.P.C. and the order dated 3.10.2011 passed in another application dated 29.9.2011 filed under Order 8 Rules 1, 9 and 10 HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.10.13 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Civil Rev. No.6575 of 2011 (O&M) [2] C.P.C. Notice of motion in this case was issued. Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and contested this civil revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. At the time of arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner firstly argued that the petitioner/plaintiff was not present when this order was passed, therefore, the matter be remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the application after giving hearing to the parties. He stated that the earlier order shows that on 3.10.2011 the case was adjourned to 4.10.2011, but later on the impugned order was passed on the same day. Similarly, in the order, it is written that opportunity was given for replication, but the issues were framed on the same day. Learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner further argued that the application under Order 7 Rule 6 C.P.C. was not decided on merit and was kept pending with the observation that it shall be decided after concluding evidence by both the parties with regard to the said facts. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further argued that the written statement has not been filed within the prescribed period of 30 days, which can be extended upto 90 days. It was filed much later after the filing of the application under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. by the present petitionerplaintiff. No written request was made and no reasonable ground has been given in the application, therefore, this order should be set aside and defence of the defendant be HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.10.13 17:06 struck off. I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandi
Delhi High Court State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd vs Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 8 February, 2024 $~1 * + LPA 91/2024 and CM APPL. 6199/2024, CM APPL. 6200/2024 & CM APPL. 6201/2024 STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pragya Puri, Advocate. versus MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondent Through: % Date of Decision: 8th February, 2024 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL) CM APPL. 620001/2024 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of LPA 91/2024 and CM APPL. 6199/2024 3. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 15th January, 2024, passed in W.P.(C) 4227/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the Award dated 1st December, 2012, passed by the Delhi Arbitration Centre in ARB. CASE ID: Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA LPA 91/2024 Page 1 of 8 SHARMA Signing Date:13.02.2024 11:41:58 DL/10/M/SWC/00035 of 2022 ('the Award'), holding that when a dispute resolution mechanism is provided under the Act, the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India should not entertain the petitions only because of condition of predeposit. 4. Bereft of unnecessary details, the writ petition was filed by the Appellant herein challenging the Award dated 1st December, 2012, whereby the learned Arbitrator awarded a sum of ₹ 7,21,10,729/ to the Respondent No. 2 along with pendente lite and future interest as per the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ('MSMED Act') and litigation costs of ₹ 50,000/. The Appellant contends that the Award is nonest in law and deserves to be set aside on ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction. 5. The Appellant contends that since, at the time of execution of contract and/or at the time of concluding of supplies thereunder i.e., in the year 1991, the Respondent No.2 was not registered under the MSMED Act, which itself was enacted in the year 2006 and therefore, the said Act is not applicable to the transactions/contracts entered into before enactment of said Act. 6. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant states that though the Appellant herein has the remedy of filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act of 1996') challenging the Award, however, it is not an efficacious remedy in the facts of this case. He states that the Appellant will have to make a pre deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as per Section 19 of the MSMED Act. He states that, in fact, the objections by way of a petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA LPA 91/2024 Page 2 of 8 SHARMA Signing Date:13.02.2024 11:41:58 stands filed, however, the Appellant is not pursuing the same due to condition of predeposit. 6.1. He states that in similar facts, learned Single Judge of this Co
Orissa High Court State Of Odisha & Anr vs Director Of Industries on 20 June, 2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24Jun2025 16:53:36 A.F.R. W.P.(C) No. 3376 of 2016 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227of the Constitution of India, 1950). State of Odisha & Anr. .... Petitioner(s) versus Director of Industries, Micro Small .... Opposite Party (s) Entrepreneurs Facilitation Council, Odisha, Cuttack & Anr. Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jyoshnamayee Sahoo, ASC For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. S. Routray, Adv. DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:08.04.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:20.06.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioners, in the present Writ Petition, are challenging the order dated 23.08.2013 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation (MSEF) Council, as well as the order dated 09.03.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Nuapada in the related execution proceedings, on the ground that both orders are illegal, Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24Jun2025 16:53:36 arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction, and are therefore liable to be quashed. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows: (i) The State Government, through the Department of Health & Family Welfare, launched a scheme titled the 'Area Development Programme' in 1981, with assistance from the Government of the United Kingdom. The said programme was implemented in two phases and formally concluded on 31.03.1996. (ii) In the course of implementation, the Project Director issued Procurement Order No. 2522 dated 08.06.1994 in favour of M/s Steel and Steel Products/Opposite Party No.2, for supply of office steel tables and steel shelving cabinets to various Primary Health Centres in the districts of undivided Kalahandi and Bolangir. (iii) Pursuant thereto, Opposite Party No.2 raised Bill No. 74 dated 25.10.1994 for a sum of ₹1,32,316/, addressed to the Project Director. Payment was made via Bank Draft No. 456291 dated 14.02.1995, and the same was acknowledged under letter dated 16.02.1996. However, an amount of ₹47,081/ towards transportation, loading, unloading, and packing charges remained unpaid. (iv) In 2007, Opposite Party No.2 submitted a revised claim before the MSEF Council under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, seeking recovery of ₹47,081/ along with compound interest towards unpaid charges for unloading, transportation, and ancillary services. The claim was founded on a bill dated 19.03.2007. Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Integral Coach Factory, Represented by its General Manager, Chennai – 600 038. ... Respondent in 2 WPs Prayer in WP.No.33361/2023: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent in holding the Rejection Advices No.20230288 and 20230289 both dated 21.09.2023 issued by the respondent for rejecting a quantity of 2528 as well as a quantity of 7330 and 142 pieces covered by Rejection Advices No.20230225 dated 07.08.2023 and 20230223 dated 03.08.2023 as contrary to the provisions of Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.33361 & 33366 of 2023 MSME Act, 2006 as applicable to the petitioner firm and quash the said proceedings as arbitrary, without authority of law. Prayer in WP.No.33366/2023: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent in holding the Rejection Advices No.20230118 dated 26.05.2023 and 20230301 dated 04.10.2023 issued by the respondent for rejecting a quantity of 11335 and 17200 pieces respectively as contrary to the provisions of MSME Act, 2006 as applicable to the petitioner firm and quash the said proceedings as arbitrary, without authority of law. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Murugappan (in 2WPs) For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy Senior Panel Counsel Central Govt. (in 2WPs) COMMON ORDER The Rejection Advices dated 26.05.2023, 21.09.2023 and 04.10.2023 issued by the respondent are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner Firm is a registered Partnership Firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying various types of rubber products Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.33361 & 33366 of 2023 such as Rubber Sheet and Profiles for industrial use. The petitioner firm is a duly approved / registered supplier for Research Design Standard Organisation, Integral Coach Factory (ICF) and other production units under the Ministry of Railways. 3. The petitioner supplied rubber material to the Integral Coach Factory (ICF). The said materials were tested as per the terms and conditions of the contract and authorities found some of the materials supplied by the
1. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Union of India through Secretary, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi110003 2. State of Haryana Through Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh122001 3. The Director General Town and Country Planning Deptt, Haryana H.Q., SCO 7175, Sec.17C, Chandigarh160017 4. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon C1, Sector 34, Infocity, Gurgaon122001, Haryana 5. The Collector/Deputy Commissioner First Floor, Mini Secretariat, Near Rajiv Chowk, Gurgaon122001, Haryana 6. The SDM, North Mini Secretariat, Gurgaon122001, Haryana 7. The Chairman Central Ground Water Board 1 Bhujal Bhawan, NHIV, Faridabad121001, Haryana 8. The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Bays No. 5558, Parytan Bhawan, Ist Floor, Sector 2, Panchkula134109 Haryana 9. Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) HUDA Office Complex, C3, Sector 6, Panchkula134109, Haryana 10. Haryana State Pollution Control Board C11, Sector6 Panchkula134109, Haryana 11. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd Through its Director, Regd. Office: 115 Ansal Bhawan, K.G. Marg, New Delhi110001 ...Respondent(s) Counsel for Respondent(s): Mr. Anil Grover, Senior AAG with Mr. Rahul Khurana, Advocate for State of Haryana & HSPCB Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate for CPCB Ms. Nitika Choukse, Advocate for DHBVN PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER Reserved on: 01st April, 2022 Pronounced on: 4th July, 2022 SYNOPSIS Documents Para no Page no 1. Brief facts 19 39 2. Inspection report dated 16.11.2018 by CPCB 1011 913 3. Status report dated 05.04.2019 by CPCB 1215 1316 4. Action taken report dated 21.06.2019 by CPCB, filed on 16 1718 21.06.2019 5. Affidavit/Reply dated 09.07.2019 by CGWA, filed on 1720 1922 10.07.2019 6. CGWA letter dated 30.09.2019 to respondent 11 21 22 7. Reply dated 04.10.2019 by respondent 11, filed on 2223 2223 07.10.2019 8. Compliance Report by CPCB dated 14.10.2019 filed on 2425 2324 15.10.2019 9. Report dated 06.12.2019 by SEIAA Haryana 26 24 10. Action taken report dated 08.01.2020 by HSPCB 28 2426 11. Letter dated 10.01.2020 from Hydrologist, Ground Water Cell 29 27 Gurugram filed by CGWA on 16.01.2020 12. DC Gurgaon letter (Compliance report) dated 27.01.2020 30 27 2 13. Tribunal's order dated 05.02.2020 31 2728 14. Report dated 16.03.2020 by Chief Secretary, Government of 32 28 Haryana 15. Report dated 30.09.2020 by Chief Secretary, Government of 3334 2931 Haryana filed on 30.09.2020 16. Action taken report dated 07.09.2021 by Chief Secretary, 3536 3134 Haryana filed on 10.09.2021 17. Compliance Report dated 03.02.2022 by Dakshin Haryana 38 3435 Bijli Vitran Nigam on 11.02.2022 18. Reply/Status Report dated 30.03.2022 by TCPD Haryana 39 3641 filed on 30.03.2022 19. Report dated 31.03