abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Reliance Communication Ltd. ( Formerly ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 28 June, 2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH "L", MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ........ ITA Numbers 837/M/07, 5076/M/08, 5077/M/08, 5078/M/08, 5079/M/08 5080/M/08, 5081/M/08, 5082/M/08, 5083/M/08, 5084/M/08 5085/M/08, 5086/M/08, 5087/M/08, 5088/M/08, 5089/M/08, 5090/M/08, 5091/M/08, 5092/M/08, 5467/M/08, 5469/M/08, 5470/M/08, 5474/M/08, 5475/M/08, 5476/M/08, 5477/M/08, 6093/M/08, 3431/M/08, 3432/M/08, 3433/M/08, 3434/M/08, 3435/M/08, 3436/M/08, 3437/M/08, 3438/M/08, 3439/M/08, 3440/M/08, 3441/M/08, 3442/M/08, 3443/M/08, 3444/M/08, 4278/M/08, 4279/M/08, 4280/M/08, 4281/M/08, 4282/M/08, 4283/M/08, 4284/M/08, 4285/M/08, 4286/M/08, 4287/M/08, 4244/M/08, 4245/M/08, 4246/M/08, 4247/M/08, 4248/M/08, 4249/M/08, 4250/M/08, 4251/M/08, 4252/M/08, 4253/M/08, 4254/M/08, 4255/M/08, 4256/M/08, 4257/M/08, 4258/M/08, 4259/M/08, 4260/M/08, 4261/M/08, 4291/M/08, 4305/M/08, 4306/M/08, 4307/M/08, 4308/M/08, 4309/M/08, 4310/M/08, 4873/M/07, 4874/M/07, 4875/M/07, 4876/M/07, 4877/M/07, 4878/M/07, 4899/M/07, 4900/M/07, 4901/M/07, 4902/M/07, 4903/M/07, 4904/M/07, 4905/M/07, 4906/M/07, 4907/M/07, 4908/M/07, 4909/M/07, 4910/M/07, 4916/M/07, 4917/M/07, 4918/M/07, 4919/M/07, 4920/M/07, 4921/M/07, 4922/M/07, 4923/M/07 , 4924/M/07, 4925/M/07, 4926/M/07, 4927/M/07, 4928/M/07, 5373/M/07, 5374/M/08, 4672/M/07, 4673/M/07, 4674/M/07, 4675/M/07, 4676/M/07, 4677/M/07, 5071/M/08, 5072/M/08, 5073/M/08, 5074/M/08, 5075/M/08. (119 appeals) Sr.No. Appellant Respondent 1 DDIT(IT)2(1) M/s. Reliance Infocom Ltd. (Now R.No.120, 1st Floor known as, Scindia House, Reliance Communications Ltd) , Ballard Estate, CBlock, 1st Floor, N.M. Road, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge Mumbai400 038. City, Koperkhairne Navi Mumbai400 710. PANAAACR265 2 Reliance and Lucent Group ITA Nos. 5468/M/08, 5471/M/08, 5472/M/08, 5473/M/08, 729/M/09, 4501/M/09. Sr.No. Appellant Respondent 2 DDIT(IT)2(1) Reliance Communications R.No.120, 1st Floor Infrastructure Ltd Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N.M. Road, Mumbai400 038. ITA. No.730/Mum/09. Sr.No. Appellant Respondent 3 DDIT(IT)2(1) Reliance Infostream Private R.No.120, 1st Floor Limited (Now Reliance BPO Scindia House, Limited) Ballard Estate, N.M. Road, Mumbai400 038. ITA Nos. 5093/M/08, 5094/M/08, 5095/M/08, 5096/M/08 Sr.No. Appellant Respondent 4 DDIT(IT)2(1) Reliance Telecom Ltd. R.No.120, 1st Floor Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N.M. Road, Mumbai400 038. ITA Nos. 7001/M/10, 7002/M/10, 7003/M/10, 7004/M/10 For Asst. Years 200304, 200405, 200506 & 200708. Sr.No. Appellant Respondent 5 Addl. DIT M/s. Lucent Technologies GRL ( International Taxation), LLC, USA Range4, Mumbai 3 Reliance and Lucent Group Revenue by : Shri Parag Vyas Reliance by : Shri J.D. Mistri Lucent by : Shri P. J Pardiwala Date of conclusion of : 28/06/2013 hearing Date of Pronouncement : 06/09/2013
Private Limited, of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(1), PAN : AADCI5931J. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri H. Srinivasulu Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CITDR Date of hearing: 11.07.2022 Date of pronouncement: 10.08.2022 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal is filled by the assessee feeling aggrieved with the order dt.30.03.2021 passed by the National eAssessment Centre, Delhi u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and 144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 201617. The assessee had filed a letter dated 12.07.2022, as per which the following grounds were pressed by the assessee : 2 ITA No.254/Hyd/2021 4. Incorrect Selection of comparable companies a. Laresn & Tourbo Infotech Ltd. 1. Brand value 2. Extraordinary eventAmalgamation 3. Functionally different 4. Internally developed intangibles 5. Income from trading of goods 6. Two segmentsSoftware services include Knowledge Process Outsourcing(KPO) (Medial& Entertainment) 7.Segmental details are incomplete and computation of correct margin is not possible 8. Excluded by Hon'ble ITAT in AY 201617 in case of ADP Private Ltd. b. Tata Elxsi Ltd. 1. Functionally different 2. It is a KPO and ITES company 3. Existence of inventory in profit and loss account 4. Internally developed intangibles 5. Income from sale of traded goods 6. Segmental details are incomplete and computation of correct margin is not possible 7. Excluded by Hon'ble ITAT in AY 201617, AY 201516 and AY 201415 in case of ADP Private Ltd. c. Persistent Systems Ltd. 1. Functionally different 2.No segmental information 3. Revenue from products 4. Significant related party transactions 5. Presence of brand 6. Research and development approval by CSIR 7. Excluded by Hon'ble ITAT in AY 201617, AY 201516 and AY 201415 in case of ADP Private Ltd. d. Infosys Ltd. 1. Huge turnover 2. functionally different software products and services 3. significant selling and marketing expenses 4.Extraoridnary eventbuisness transfer 5. engaged in diversified activities 6. Presence of brand 7. A leading provider of consulting technology, Out sourcing & next generation services 8. Onsite revenue 9. No segmental available 10. Deferred consideration for acquisition debited to profit and loss account 3 ITA No.254/Hyd/2021 11. Excluded by Hon'ble ITAT in AY 201617, AY 201516 and AY 2014
1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Director of Industries cum Chairman, Jharkhand Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Doranda, Ranchi 3. M/s. C. K. Industries, a Proprietorship Firm, Dhanbad ........Respondents ­­­­­ ­­­­­ For the Petitioner : M/s. Anoop Kumar Mehta and Amit Kumar Sinha, Advs. For the Respondent­State : J. C to A.A.G For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. J.K.Pasari, Adv. ­­­­­ 7/14.9.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent no. 3 invoked the jurisdiction of Jharkhand Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as Facilitation Council 'in short') in terms of Section 18 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council Act, 2006 raising a claim for payment of outstanding bills, 13 in numbers furnished in the Chart enclosed to Annexure­2 totaling Rs. 50,053.00/­. The date of bills are distributed over a period of 4 years starting from 28th March, 2005 till 28th July, 2009. The opposite party/petitioner herein was noticed vide Memo no. 259 Ranchi dated 2nd February, 2012 in Case No. JHMSEFC 03/2011 to appear on 24th February, 2012 before the Council at Directorate of Industries, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi and submit its show cause, failing which the matter would proceed ex parte. Apparently, the notice did not enclose the claim petition, which was served vide Annexure­2 dated 27th February, 2012 to General Manager, Kustore Area, B.C.C.L by the claimant/respondent no. 3 herein with the enclosures. Petitioner sought to submit its written statement on 22nd March, 2012 i.e., the date 2. on which the matter was finally decided. The petitioner did not file its reply on the next date fixed 14th March, 2012 admittedly. He was refused permission to file its show cause on 22nd March, 2012, when the Council proceeded to decide the case on merits. The impugned order passed thereupon and communicated vide Memo no. 1384 dated 26th April, 2012 (Annexure­4) has been challenged by the petitioner in the aforesaid background facts. Petitioner on its part raised the plea of denial of sufficient opportunity to file written statement in its defence. Apart from that a plea of limitation has also been taken in respect of the different claims outstanding referred to in the claim application containing the chart of the bills. It has also questioned the approach of the Facilitation Council in deciding the matter on merits without exhausting the steps stipulated under Section 18(2) of the Act of 2006. It is submitted that the matter was required to be first referred for conciliation and only on failure to arrive at a settlement between the parties, the Council would have taken up dispute for arbitration or referred it to any institution or center for adjudication in the nature of an arbitration proceeding in terms of Section 18(3) of the Act. The impugned order is otherwise also cryptic and str
Sh. Narender Singh Authorized Signatory of M/S Abhishek Garments M/s Yaduvanshi Industries, 37, Ground Floor, JTM Mall, Jagatpur, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302017 ..... Accused Complaint Case number : 12293/2018 Date of Institution of Complaint : 01.09.2018 Offence Complained of : Section 138 NI Act Plea of Accused : Not Guilty Final order : Conviction Date of Decision : 14.08.2018 Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI SETHI SETHI Date: 2025.08.14 16:43:35 +0530 1 CC No. 12293/2018 M/s Skybrite Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Narender Singh JUDGMENT 1. The present complaint has been filed by M/s Skybrite Industries Pvt. Ltd. through its Account Manager, Mr. Ashu Mittal, (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant'), against Sh. Narender Singh, Authorized Signatory of M/s Yaduvanshi Industries, (hereinafter referred to as 'accused'), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') for dishonour of cheques bearing numbers 585901, 585902, 585903, 585904, 585905 and 585906, all dated 11.06.2018, for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ each, all drawn on Vijaya Bank, Malviya Nagar Branch, Rajasthan 302017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'cheques in question'). A. BRIEF FACTS: 2. (a) The complainant has alleged that the accused was engaged in the business of fabrication of UPVC Doors and Window Profile and that the complainant company used to supply the said material to the accused in lieu of the purchase orders placed by him, against Invoices. It is further alleged that the last material was supplied to the accused in January 2018 and a total outstanding of Rs. 22,07,852.9/ was due from the accused. It is further alleged that for the part payment of the said amount and to discharge his liability, the accused issued the cheques in question (Ex. CW1/5 to Ex. CW1/10) to the complainant and the same were dishonoured upon presentation, vide return memos dated 21.06.2018 (Ex. CW1/11 to CW1/16) with remarks "Payment stopped by drawer". (b) Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 19.07.2018 (Ex.CW1/17) to the accused through his Counsel. However, the accused allegedly failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period, despite such notice, and therefore, the present complaint has been filed. Digitally signed by SURABHI SURABHI SETHI SETHI Date: 2025.08.14 16:43:51 +0530 2 CC No. 12293/2018 M/s Skybrite Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Narender Singh 3. The accused has admitted business transactions with the complainant company and has also admitted the supply of material by the complainant company. However, the stance of the accused is that the material supplied by the complainant company was of inferior quality
Bombay High Court Banking Regulation Act vs State Bank Of Patiala on 8 October, 2008 1 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1463 OF 2008 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, ) a Banking Company within the meaning of the ) Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and registered under ) the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered ) office at 3638A, Nariman Bhavan, Nariman Point, ) Mumbai400 021. )...Petitioner versus 1. State Bank of Patiala, having its branch ) office at 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, ) New Delhi110 001 ) 2. The Official Liquidator attached to the ) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench, ) having its office at B75A, Rajendra Marg, ) Bapu Nagar, Jaipur302 015 as Official Liquidator ) of Unikol Bottlers Ltd. ) 3. Industrial Development Bank of India Limited, ) having its Registered Office at IDBI Towers, WTC ) Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai400 005 ) 4. IFCI Limited (formerly known as The Industrial ) Finance Corporation of India Limited), a Public ) Limited Company Registered under the Companies ) Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office at ) Bank of Baroda Building, 16, Sansad Marg, ) New Delhi110 001 and Regional Office at ) th th Earnest House, 7 to 9 floor, Nariman Point, ) Mumbai400 021. )..Respondents. Mr. Birendra Saraf, instructed by M/s. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Company, for the petitioner. Ms. Rathina Maravarman for respondent No.1. Mr. B.B. Parekh for respondent No. 2. ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 13:57:39 ::: 2 JJ. A.A. SAYED, th Judgment reserved on: 9 September, 2008 th Judgment pronounced on: 8 October,2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.B. Majmudar, J.) 1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the DRAT") dated 11th January, 2008, in Appeal No. 108 of 2006, by which the DRAT has dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner by confirming the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Mumbai Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT"), dated 2nd December, 2005, in Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2008, modifying the order passed on 30th March, 2005, in Original Application No. 335 of 2001. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Banking Company and is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent No.1, State Bank of Patiala, is also a Banking Company which has advanced facilities to one Unikol Bottlers Limited (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"). Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Industrial Development Bank of India and Industrial Finance Corporation of India, are the public
Delhi High Court Falcon Licensing Limited vs Pri Enterprises Private Limited & Anr. on 15 April, 2025 $~30 * + C.O. (COMM.IPDTM) 271/2023 & I.A. 22284/2023, I.A. 22285/2023 FALCON LICENSING LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kunal Tandon, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ronnie Singh, Advocate and Ms. Natasha, Advocate Mob: 8882228686 versus PRI ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Utsav Jain, Advocate for R1. Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Arnav Mittal, Mr. Zubin Singh, Mr. Akash Mishra and Ms. Ridhi Kapoor, Advocates for R2. Mob: 8588916612 Email: [email protected] HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA JUDGMENT % 15.04.2025 MINI PUSHKARNA, J: 1. The present petition has been filed seeking the prayer to remove/cancel/expunge the entry pertaining to the trademark, , registered under application no. 3867168 in Class 3, from the Register of Trade Marks. 2. The facts, as canvassed in the petition, are as follows: 2.1 Petitioner is a limited company having its registered office in New Zealand. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.O. (COMM.IPDTM) 271/2023 Page 1 of 28 By:AMAN UNIYAL Signing Date:16.04.2025 09:21:05 2.2. The mark „BOLDIFY‟ was adopted by the predecessorininterest of the petitioner in the year 2016 for hair care products. The said mark has since been used honestly, bonafidely, continuously, openly, uninterruptedly and exclusively. 2.3 Subsequently, the label mark was coined and developed to convey a unique visual identity to represent and communicate the „BOLDIFY‟ brand to the general public. 2.4 The predecessorininterest of the petitioner adopted the trademark /„BOLDIFY‟, as an essential and material part of its domain name, viz., www.getboldify.com. Since then the said domain name has been used in the course of trade thereof globally, in relation to its goods and business, under the „BOLDIFY‟ brand. 2.5 The predecessorininterest of the petitioner also secured trademark registrations for the mark „BOLDIFY‟, in United States ("US") with the earliest trademark application being, dated 27th March, 2016, for goods and services, such as hair shampoos and conditioners, hair sprays and other hair products. 2.6 Starting from August, 2016, the predecessorininterest of the petitioner also started selling their goods under the trademark/label /„BOLDIFY‟, on the ecommerce platform, www.amazon.com. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.O. (COMM.IPDTM) 271/2023 Page 2 of 28 By:AMAN UNIYAL Signing Date:16.04.2025 09:21:05 2.7 The predecessorininterest of the petitioner, constituted the petitioner company on 14th February, 2017, for protection of the „BOLDIFY‟ brand and for managing all intellectual property assets under the said mark. 2.8 On 11th September, 2018, t
Delhi High Court Vinay Saran 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) 3414/2007 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) 3414/2007 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) 3414/2007 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 to set up a Public Sector Corp
Delhi High Court Sun Renewables Rt Private Limited vs Ministry Of New And Renewable Energy, ... on 27 January, 2023 2023/DHC/000630 $~2 * Date of decision: 27th January, 2023 + W.P.(C) 14136/2021 & CM APPLs.44610/2021, 46811/2022, 2893/2023 SUN RENEWABLES RT PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Khurana, Mr. Abhishek Bansal & Mr. Ashwini Kumar Tak, Advocates (M9811231287) versus MINISTRY OF NEW AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Uniyal & Mr. Dhawal Uniyal, Advocates for UOI (M 9560806614) Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash and Mr. Rajan Parmar, Advocates for R2 (M: 9910532449). JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 seeking direction to the Respondents to comply with the scheme 'Achievement Linked Incentives and Award Scheme' under 'Grid Connected Rooftop and Small Solar Power Plants Program'. The Petitioner seeks release of its balance amount to the tune of Rs.96.96 lacs pending under the said Scheme. 3. The Petitioner Sun Renewable RT Pvt ltd. is engaged in various businesses related to renewable energy. One of its business activities is to build, acquire and operate solar assets as also selling electricity to various Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14136/2021 Page 1 of 14 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.01.2023 10:50:34 2023/DHC/000630 governmental industries and customers. 4. The Government of India launched a scheme for rooftop and small powerplants which involved giving incentives by the government for operationalising solar power generation units. The said scheme, titled "AchievementLinked Incentives and Awards Scheme" (hereinafter 'Scheme') under the "Grid Connected Rooftop and Small Solar Power Plants Program" (hereinafter 'program'). The same was launched by the government with an intention to promote grid connected rooftop and power generating plants in order to reduce dependence on fossil fuelbased electricity generation. The purpose of the said scheme was to create an environment for investment by private players in the solar energy sector. 5. The Scheme was originally launched on 4th May, 2016, as per which proposals were to be submitted by companies which were willing to generate solar power. The Scheme was amended on 30th March, 2017 which contemplated incentives based upon achievement of targets. Further to the amendment of the Scheme issued by the Ministry on 30th March, 2017, a Request for Selection (hereinafter 'RfS') of bidders was issued by Respondent No.2 NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter 'NVVNL') on 31st March, 2017 for the implementation of a 13.5 KWP Grid Connected Rooftop Solar PV Systems for the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Under RESCO model) (hereinafter 'project'). 6.
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 14:45:54 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