abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
1. The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer/Fur Division, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai600 038. 2. The Principal Chief Mechanical Engineer, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai600 038. 3. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Department, 256A, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi110 001. .. Respondents in both WPs *** Prayer in W.P.No.19150/2020 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records of the corrigendum published on 01.12.2020 at 17.26 hours in the said Tender Notification No.2020471210250, dated 04.11.2020 to be opened on 16.12.2020 and quash the same and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 1/22 W.P.Nos.19150/2020 & 5948/2021 consequently direct the second respondent herein to consider the representation dated 05.11.2020, 09.11.2020 and 23.11.2020 of this petitioner and modify the eligibility period of two year at page no.17, Chapter 2 as one year (365 days) instead of 580 days of the respondents proceedings in Tender Notice No.2020471210250 dated 04.11.2020 to be opened on 16.12.2020. Prayer in W.P.No.5948/2021 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the order of rejection dated 01.02.2021 in the proceedings Tender No.2020471210250 of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to open the bid submitted by this petitioner dated 16.12.2020. *** For Petitioner in both : Ms.P.Bagyalakshmi writ petitions For Respondents in : Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, Senior Counsel both Writ Petitions for Mr.P.T.Ramkumar Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER Since the parties and the issue arising out of these writ petitions are one and the same, these writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.19150 of 2020 laid challenge to the corrigendum published on 01.12.2020 in the Tender Notification https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 2/22 W.P.Nos.19150/2020 & 5948/2021 No.2020471210250, dated 04.11.2020, which was scheduled to be opened on 16.12.2020 and also sought for a direction to the second respondent to cons
Ltd, Ward11(2), 701, Guru Apartments, New Delhi Sector14, Rohni, New Delhi PAN: AAACE8014F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : i. Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv ii. Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv iii. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/03/2017 Date of pronouncement 11/05/2017 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee [ hereinafter referred to as ‗ Appellant' also] against the assessment order [ hereinafter referred to as the ‗order' also ] of the ld Income Tax Officer, Ward 11 (2), New Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as the ‗AO' ] dated 30/04/2013 u/s 143(3)(ii) r.w.s 144C(5) of the Income tax E Valueserve.com Pvt Ltd V ITO ITA 4001/del/2013 AY 200607 Act [ In short ‗the Act'] passed in pursuance of direction dated 28/07/2010 by the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel [ hereinafter referred to as ‗The DRP'] against the draft assessment order dated 21/12/2009 incorporating transfer pricing adjustment determining the Arm's length price [ The ALP'] of International Transactions u/s 92CA made by ld Additional CIT (Transfer Pricing)I (2), New Delhi [ Hereinafter referred to as ‗The TPO'] vide order dated 23/09/2009 for AY 200607. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") is bad in law and void abinitio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the reference made by the Ld. AO suffers from jurisdictional error as the Ld. AO did not record any reasons in the draft assessment order based on which he reached the conclusion that it was "expedient and necessary" to refer the matter to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer {"TPO"} for computation of the arm's length price, as is required under section 92CA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 16,24,01,920/ to the returned income of the Appellant by recomputing the arm's length price of the international transactions under section 92 of the Act. 2 E Valueserve.com Pvt Ltd V ITO ITA 4001/del/2013 AY 200607 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred on facts and in law in determining the arm's length price of the international transactions of the Assessee by : (a) not adopting the set of comparables selected by the assessee in its Transfer Pricing Study; (b) making erroneous inclusion and exclusion in the set of comparable companies by using erroneous quantitative filers in the search process; (c) using the data of the Financial Year 200506 for the comparable companies despite the same being not available to the Assessee at the time of preparation of the documentation under Rule 10D of the Incometax Rules, 1962; (d) by not accepting the Assessee's selection of comparables carried out during the assessment proceedings based on data of the Financial Year 200506; (e) by not allowing any economic adjustment for difference in capacity utiliza
which, the Division Bench, while upholding the vires of section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006, held that the pre­ deposit of 75% of the arbitral award under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is directory and not mandatory, has permitted the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to continue without insistence on making a pre­deposit of 75% of the awarded amount. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court permitting the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, to go on without insistence for making pre­deposit of 75% of the awarded amount, the appellant herein – original judgment creditor has preferred the present appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing
1. State of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 (through the Government Pleader, High Court, Original Side) 2. Additional Collector, Aurangabad Office of the Collector, Near Trazeri Office, Labour Colony, Aurangabad, Maharashtra 431 001 3. Collector and District Magistrate Old Custom House, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ... Respondents Page 1 of 95 ::: Uploaded on 07/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on 07/08/2025 21:35:45 ::: 901.WP1813.16(J).DOCX WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1689 OF 2015 1. Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Wajeda House, Behind Gazebo House, Gulmohar Cross Road No.7, Juhu Scheme , Mumbai 400 049 2. Rajesh Balpande Director of Petitioner No.1 Having office at Wajeda House, Behind Gazebo House, Gulmohar Cross Road No.7, Jubhu Scheme, Mumbai 400 049. ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Maharashtra Revenue and Forests Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai400 032 (through the Government Pleader, Original Side) 2. The Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, 9thfloor, Administrative Building, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ... Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr. Naresh Thacker a/w Mr. Chakrapani Misra, Mr. Sameer Bindra, Ms. Ananya Misra i/by Khaitan & Co. for the Petitioners in WP/1813/2016 and for the Applicant in NMW/6/2017. Mr. Rohan Rajadhyakshaa/w Mr. Rajendra Barot, Mr. Dhaval Vora, Mr. DhirajkumarTotala and Mr. Tejas Raghav i/by AZB & Partners for the Petitioners in WP/1689/2015. Page 2 of 95 ::: Uploaded on 07/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on 07/08/2025 21:35:45 ::: 901.WP1813.16(J).DOCX Mr. Milind More, Addl. G. P. for Respondents Nos.1 & 3 in WP/1813/2016 and for Respondents Nos.1 & 2 in WP/1689/2015 for State of Maharashtra. ______________________________________________________ CORAM M.S. Sonak& Jitendra Jain, JJ. RESERVED ON 28 July 2025 PRONOUNCED ON 6 August 2025 Judgment (Per Jitendra Jain, J.) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner no.1 Association of Multiplex Theatres in Writ Petition No.1813 of 2016, have sought the following reliefs: "a) to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Amen
Madras High Court M/S. P.V.S.Knittings vs James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd on 30 April, 2025 2025:MHC:1141 Order reserved on 21.04.2025 Order pronounced on 30.04.2025 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.182 of 2023 & (T) OP(TM) No.10 of 2024 M/s. P.V.S.Knittings, A registered partnership firm No.3H, Soosaiyapuram Colony Road, Rayapuram, Tirupur641 601. ... Plaintiff and Petitioner v. P. Prakash Sole Proprietor, trading as M/s. S P S TEX No.98, 4th Street, Solipalayam, 15 Velampalayam Road, Tirupur641 652. ... Defendant and Respondent PRAYER in C.S.(CD) No.182 of 2023: This Civil Suit (Comm. Div.) filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 OS Rules read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 & 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Sections 51, 55 & 62 of the Copyrights Act, 1957, praying to grant a judgment and decree on the following terms: __________ Page 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 01:38:14 pm ) a) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark TWIN BIRDS under No.3609862 in class 25 or other formative trademarks by suing a deceptively similar trademark FLY BIRDS or any other trademark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark or in any other manner whatsoever; b) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work depicted in the TWIN BIRDS label with the use of the two birds device by using the FLY BIRDS label with the use of the two birds in the same colour scheme of pink and white which is a substantial reproduction of the said artistic work or by use of any other label identical or similar to the plaintiff's artistic work in the TWIN BIRDS label or in any other manner whatsoever; c) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in __________ Page 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 01:38:14 pm ) any manner passing off and/or enabling others to pass off the Defendants' products under the trademark FLY BIRDS with the use of the two birds in the same colour scheme of pink and white as and for the plaintiffs' products by manufacturing, selling, or offering to sell, distributing, displaying, printing, stocking, using, advertising their products with a trademark FLY BIRDS or any other trade mark which is identical or similar to the plaintiff's trademark and trade dress for their TWIN BIRDS or in any other manner whatsoever; d) the Defendant be ordered to surrender to Plaintiffs for destruction of all products, labels, cartons, dyes, blocks, moulds, screen prints,
Delhi High Court Fortuna Skill Management Pvt Ltd ... vs Jaina Marketing And Associates on 3 July, 2024 $~23 * % Date of Decision:03.07.2024 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 123/2024 FORTUNA SKILL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IQOR GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.) ....Appellant Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Akshay Ringe, Ms. Megha Mukherjee, Mr. Anupam Singh, Mr. Dhananjay Gupta and Ms. H. Nanya, Advs. versus JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES .....Respondent Through: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. CM No.36369/2024 (Exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. FAO(OS) (COMM) 123/2024 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short as 'A&C Act') read with Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) (COMM) 123/2024 Page 1 of 25 By:KAMLA RAWAT Signing Date:10.07.2024 14:16:56 Section 13(1) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in a petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act [OMP (COMM.) No. 511/2023] and consequently, also the Arbitral Award dated 19.08.2023, passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. 2. The Appellant is stated to be a wellknown service provider in the field of rendering aftersales services for various electronic equipments like laptops, mobile handsets, tablets, power banks and other accessories. The name of the Appellant was first changed from M/s iQor Global Services India Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Ivy Technology Servtech International Pvt. Ltd., and thereafter, again changed to Fortuna Skill Management Pvt. Ltd. The factum of the aforesaid change of name was duly brought to the notice of the Arbitral Tribunal which took the same on record. 3. The respondent/claimant is a partnership firm and stated to be engaged in the business of importing, trading, distribution, and sale of telecommunication equipment including mobile phones and its spare parts and accessories under the brand name of "Karbonn and Panasonic Mobiles". 4. The parties are stated to have commenced their business dealings sometime in the year 2015, whereby the Respondent engaged the services of the Appellant Company for approximately 4546 locations in India for the purpose of rendering customer care service for mobile phones being sold by the Respondent/Claimant. It is stated that a formal agreement was entered into between the parties on 29.01.2016. The services under the agreement can be broadly categorized into three categories (i) under warranty, ii) out of warranty and (iii) mobile refurbishments. The Respondent/Claimant supplied spare parts to the Appellant on a 'Sale and Purchase Model' from Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) (COMM) 123/2024 Page 2 of 25 By:KAMLA RAWAT Signing Date:10.07.202
1. Reliance Communications Limited, having its registered office at H Block, 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai 400071, through its authorized signatory Mr. Mukesh Kumar, (Deputy Manager Legal) son of Gopal Sharan Singh Gandhinagar, Aashiana Nagar, Sector4, Police Station Rajiv Nagar Patna 800025 (Bihar) 2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Industries, Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Director, Department of Industries, Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Micro and Small Industries Facilitation Council, through its Chairman, Patna ... ... Respondent/s with Letters Patent Appeal No. 1036 of 2018 Arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 8077 of 2018 The Best Towers Private Limited, 9/2 BIADA Industrial Area, Patliputra Patna through its Managing Director, Pervez Ahmad, son of Late Dr. Tahir Hussain, Resident of 9/2 BIADA, Industrial Area, Patliputra, presently Residing at House No. B55, Ground Floor East, East of Community Hall, People Cooperative Colony, Ashok Nagar, Patna20 ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. Reliance Communications Limited, having its registered office at H Block, 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai 400071, through its authorized signatory Mr. Mukesh Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Gopal Sharan Singh, Gandhi Nagar, Aashiana Nagar, Sector4, Police Station Rajiv Nagar, Patna 800025 (Bihar) Patna High Court LPA No.1035 of 2018 dt.14022019 2/29 2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Industries, Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Director, Department of Industries, Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Micro and Small Industries Facilitation Council, through its Chairman, Patna ... ... Respondent/s For the Appellant/s : Mr.Jai Kishore Sharma, Advocate Mrs. Ranjeeta Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anuj Prakash, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 14022019 Re: I.A. No. 6049 of 2018 (In L.P.A. No. 1035 of 2018) & I.A. No. 6050 of 2018 (In L.P.A. No. 1036 of 2018). Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appeals are reported to be delayed by 3 and 5 days respectively. 3. We have considered the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation applications and we find that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The delay is condoned and the appeals shall be treated to be within time. 4. Both the Interlocutory Applications stand allowed Patna High Court LPA No.1035 of 2018 dt.14022019 3/29 accordingly. Re: L.P.A. No. 1035 of 2018 & 1036 of 2018. These Intra Court Appeals have been filed assailing the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 19th
Karnataka High Court Mohan Chandra P vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2022 1 WA No.481 of 2022 INDEX OF ORDER SL. No. DESCRIPTION PAGE NOS. CAUSE TITLE 23 I FACTS OF THE CASE 46 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE WRIT 714 II PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT No.1. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE WRIT 1421 III PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT No.2. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE WRIT 2122 IV PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT Nos.3 and 4. REJOINDER FILED BY THE WRIT 2225 V PETITIONER OBSERVATIONS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE 2526 VI JUDEGE IN THE WRIT PETITION VII CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT 2627 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED 28 VIII ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED 2933 IX COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED 3334 X COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT Nos.3 and 4 XI POINT FOR CONSIDERATION 34 XII CONSIDERATION 3568 XIII CONCLUSION 68 XIV RESULT 68 *** 2 WA No.481 of 2022 R DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL No.481 OF 2022 (SRES) BETWEEN: 1. MOHAN CHANDRA P., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE JANARDHANA NAYAK P., R/AT PANJIGAR HOUSE, KALANJA POST, SULLIA TALUK 574 212. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI MOHAN CHANDRA P., PARTYINPERSON) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, (JANASPANDANA CELL), 3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, Digitally signed by V. V. TOWER, BENGALURU 560 001, MALATESH K C REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. Location: High Court of Karnataka 2. SRI N. C. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER 3. SRI S. M. SOMASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER. 3 WA No.481 of 2022 4. SRI K. P. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, NO.2 TO 4 ARE WORKING AT KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION ROOM NO.331 TO 347 GATE NO.2, 3RD STAGE, 3RD FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAXMINARAYAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) **** THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/04/2022 IN WP No.21902/2019 (SRES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The present intra Court Appeal is filed by the Appellant/ writ petitioner/partyinperson, who is the aspirant for the post of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner pursuance to the notification dated 07.08.2018 issued by the State Government, challenging the Order dated 4
Madhya Pradesh High Court Agrawal Panchayat Nyas Ujjain Through ... vs M/S Protek Aqua Solutinos Pvt. Ltd. ... on 31 July, 2023 1 1 AT I N D O R E BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 2339 of 2023 BETWEEN: AGRAWAL PANCHAYAT NYAS UJJAIN THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT VIJAY AGRAWAL S/O SHRI LAXMINARAYAN AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 87 SARDAR VALLABH BHAI PATEL MARG INFRONT OF KHANDELWAL DHARSHALA BUDHWARIYA DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI ANKUR MODI, ADVOCATE) AND M/S PROTEK AQUA SOLUTINOS PVT. LTD. THROGH ITS DIRECTOR KISHORE 1. BUNDELA S/O SUNDARLALJI BUNDELA 58 B DWARKAPURI DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) AGRAWAL SAMAJ SIMHASTA SAMITI 19, 2. FAWWARA CHOWK, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH) AGRAWAL SAMAJ SIMHASTA SAMITI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT ASHOK GARG 3. M/S LAKSHMI BISEN MILL 67/5 AAGAR ROAD, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH) AGRAWAL SAMAJ SIMHASTA SAMITI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY 4. SHAILENDRA GARG M/S SHIVANI SALES CORPORATION NEAR LAL MASJID, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH) M.P. MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL 5. VIDHYANCHAL BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 01Aug23 5:36:53 PM .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI RAUNAK CHOUKSE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) (SHRI M.K. JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.2,3 AND 4. ) RESERVED ON :21.06.2023 PRONOUNCED ON :31.07.2023 This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following: ORDER 1] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.12.2022, passed in MSEFC/871/2018 by the respondent no.5/M.P Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council. Vide the impugned order, the facilitation council has held that despite the fact the petitioner/nonapplicant no.1 is not a signatory in the agreement which was executed between the respondent no.1/applicant and the respondent nos.2 to 4/nonapplicants, still he cannot wriggle out of his responsibility to make payment to the applicant. Since, the petition is against the order passed by Facilitation Council which is an arbitration tribunal, the writ petition is being entertained under Art.227 of the Constitution. 2] In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent no.1/applicant M/S Protek Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd entered into an agreement with the respondents no.2,3 and 4/ nonapplicants no.2 to 4 for supply of water cooler filters and other accessories which were to be used during "Simhasta, 2016". In the afo