abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Pvt. Ltd. (Unit 2) and Ors 1]. 8. I have taken note of their respective contentions. 1 (2023) 6 SCC 401 4 9. At the outset it is to be noted that when an agreement contains a covenant to resolve the disputes by referring to Arbitration, the powers of the High Court under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 are extremely limited, and the court is ordinarily to relegate parties to arbitration (See: Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn2). However, since a preliminary issue with respect to maintainability of the reference under Section 11(5) of the Act, 1996 is raised the same shall be dealt with first. 10. Before discussing relevant precedents, it is necessary to note the statutory provisions of the Act, 2006. Section 17 of the Act, 2006 mandates that the buyer shall be liable to pay the amounts with interest for any goods supplied or services rendered by the supplier. Section 18 (1) which begins with a non obstante clause provides that a reference pertaining to any amount due under section 17 of the Act, 2006 can be made to the Facilitation Council by any party to a dispute. Sub section (2) to (5) therein contemplate the procedure to be adopted by the Facilitation Council while resolving disputes. While so Section 24 of the Act, 2006 2 (2021) 2 SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 549
Page 1 of 14 2 had issued a post dated cheque no. 060936 dated 10.05.2016 for a sum of Rs. 45,000/, when the complainant presented the said cheque with his banker, the same was returned unpaid with the remarks "Insufficient Funds" vide returning memo dated 13.05.2016. Thereafter, complaint sent a legal notice dated 31.05.2016 by way of registered speed post upon the accused and despite service of legal notice, accused failed to make the payment of the cheques in question within the stipulated time period. Hence, the complaint. 2. In the presummoning evidence, affidavit by way of evidence ExCW1/H was filed by the complainant. In her affidavit of evidence ExCW1/H, the complainant reiterated all the averments made in her complaint and relied on documents are original cheque in question Ex. CW1/A, its return memo Ex. CW1/B, office copy of legal notice Ex. CW1/C, registered postal receipt Ex. CW 1/D, speed post receipt Ex. CW1/E, proof of service Ex. CW1/F (colly), the AD card is Ex. CW1/G and the complaint is Ex. CW1/1. After closure of presummoning evidence, since sufficient material was found against the accused, summoning order u/s 204 CrPC was passed against the accused vide order dated 12.07.2016. 3. Accused appeared pursuant to issuance of summons and notice U/s 251 CrPC was served upon the accused vide order dated 26.04.2017 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused stated that he had not taken any money from the complainant. His wife had taken Rs. 15000/ from the complainant on interest and he had no transaction with the complainant. Accused stated that his cheque was lying in his house and his sisterinlaw (sali) Parveen Bakshi Vs. Narain Singh CC No. 462420/16 Page 2 of 14 3 has handed over the cheque to the complainant without any intimation to him and he had no knowledge of any transaction between complainant and his wife and he does not know how complainant has misused the cheque in question. Accused further stated that he had no legal liability to pay the cheques amount to the complainant. 4. Thereafter, upon oral request of accused U/s 145(2) N I Act to cross examine complainant and his witnesses, the same was allowed vide order dated 26.04.2017 and the accused was given an opportunity to cross examine the complainant and his witnesses. Complainant was duly cross examined by the counsel Sh. H.R. Verma for the accused. No other complainant witness was produced by the complainant. Thereafter, CE was closed vide order dated 18.09.2017. 5.
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 : Sun Jun 14 04:18:59 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 ind
1.The Chief Engineer (A/C), TWAD Board, No.30, Bharathi Park Road, Siruvani Nagar, Coimbatore – 641 043. 2.The Superintending Engineer, TWAD Board, Coimbatore. 3.The Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, Sewerage Division, Pollachi. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the withheld amount of 25% on substituted items/additional items, the final bill, withheld amount and other pending bills as per 1/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2673 of 2023 contract with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of passing the respective running account bills, within a period stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.N.L.Rajah Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Natarajan For Respondents : Mr.T.Mohan Senior Counsel for Mrs.Y.Kavitha ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the withheld amount of 25% on substituted items/additional items, the final bill, withheld amount and other pending bills as per contract with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of passing the respective running account bills, within a period stipulated by this Court. 2.The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Writ Petition, are as follows: 2/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2673 of 2023 2.1.According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner Company is a highly reputed civil contractor in Tamil Nadu and has executed project work worth about 1,500 crores under Ground Sewage Scheme in Tiruchirappalli, Srirangam, Thanjavur, Tirunelveli, Sivagangai, Ramanathapuram, Villupuram, Udumalpet, Arokkonam, Avadi, Ambattur, Maduravoyal and Salem and Sewage Treatment Plant in Villupuram, Udumalpet, Arokkonam and Salem. 2.2.While so, the first respondent, who is the Chief Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Sewerage Board, invited tender for laying an underground sewerage system in Udumalpet Municipality in Tiruppur District. The petitioner was the successful bidder in the tender and the first respondent issued a work order vide letter No.Udumalaipet UGSS/T3/CE/CBE/2013, dated 27.03.2013. The scope of work given to the pe
Delhi High Court Container Corporation Of India Limited vs M/S Watrana Traction Company on 21 August, 2025 $~ * % Judgment reserved on: 31.07.2025 Judgment delivered on: 21.08.2025 + FAO(OS)(COMM) 64/2022 & CM APPL. 13418/2022 (for stay) CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rishi Awasthi & Mr. Avinash Ankit, Advocates. versus M/S WATRANA TRACTION COMPANY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Vashisth Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar & Mr. Pankaj Kashyap, Advocates. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGEMENT HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J. 1. The present Appeal, filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 19961 read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenges the Judgment dated 17.01.2022 2 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.M.P.(COMM) No. 182/2021, as well as the Arbitral Award dated 20.01.2021 3 . By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge 1 A&C Act 2 Impugned Judgment 3 Award Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA FAO(OS) (COMM) 64/2022 Page 1 of 47 Signing Date:22.08.2025 18:20:07 upheld the Award, which had been rendered by a sole Arbitrator. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The Appellant issued a Notice Inviting Tender for providing Mechanized Cargo Handling and Inventory Management Services at Inland Container Depots. The Respondent submitted an online bid, was declared the successful bidder, and was issued a Letter of Intent dated 11.09.20174. 3. A Contract dated 18.09.20175 was thereafter executed, under which the Respondent undertook to provide the services for a period of four years, with an option for extension by one year. 4. In compliance with the LOI, the Respondent furnished a Bank Guarantee6 of Rs. 25,00,000/. 5. The records indicate that the Respondent could not deploy certain machinery as agreed, resulting in the imposition of a penalty by the Appellant. 6. The Respondent vide letter dated 21.04.2018 sought a waiver of the penalty, citing ongoing losses incurred in performing the obligations under the Contract. This was followed by a further letter dated 15.05.2018, wherein the Respondent reiterated its request for a waiver of the penalty and raised concerns regarding its financial position. Specifically, the Respondent stated that its billing for the month of April was lower than its fixed expenses, and further requested permission to remove certain resources to alleviate its financial burden until such time as the volumes of containers stabilized. 4 LOI 5 Contract 6 BG Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR
Supreme Court of India M/S Global Technologies And Research vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs New ... on 15 March, 2024 2024 INSC 204 NonReportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9385 OF 2022 M/s Global Technologies and Research … Appellant versus Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import) … Respondent JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The appellant assessee has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 29th September 2022 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the CESTAT’) in an appeal preferred under Section 129 (A) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act). We must refer to a few factual aspects. The appellant assessee has been a regular importer of camera stabilizer devices for the last several years. The appellant assessee imported a consignment of camera stabilizer devices under a Bill of Entry dated 16th February 2018. The consignment was covered Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2024.03.15 under the Invoice dated 30th January 2018, having a total 16:34:53 IST value of USD 20,353 (CF). The invoice was issued by Reason: Civil Appeal no.9385 of 2022 Page 1 of 11 M/s.Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co. Ltd. in China. 2. Out of the 4 different categories of goods, the dispute is about 3 categories, the description of which is as under: Item Description of Custo Qty. Unit Assessabl Customs Sr. Goods ms in price e Value Duty (in No. Tariff PCS in (in INR) INR) Head USD 1. Camera Stand 9620 180 55 777640.67 240913.10 (3 0000 Axis Stabilizer CRA02, Unpopular Brand) 2. Camera Stand 9620 110 45 388820.34 120456.50 (3 0000 Axis Stabilizer CRA01, Unpopular Brand) 3. Dual Handle 8529 50 10 39274.78 12167.30 (Unpopular 9090 Brand, Parts of Camera Stand) 3. On the basis of the Intelligence, the goods were examined 100% by SIIB officers. It was alleged that the goods were grossly undervalued. After taking representative samples, the goods were detained for further investigation. On 21st February 2018, the goods were seized on the ground that the same were found to be misdeclared and undervalued. Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act of the respondent and the customs broker were recorded on 23rd February 2018. The appellant's past import details were retrieved from the system, and it was found that the importer had imported identical/similar items with the same Civil Appeal no.9385 of 2022 Page 2 of 11 model numbers at higher and different unit prices. The appellant submitted a letter dated 7th March 2018 to the Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi, stating that the goods were imported from the manufacturer supported by the manufacturer’s invoice and that the value of the goods was listed on some of the wellknown online trading and B2B websites. The appellant relied upon the letter dated 16th January 2018 from the manufacturer stating that the goods were of a lower version. The Department claims to have conducted a ma
Delhi High Court Gajender Kumar Yadav 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) 23655/2005 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) 23655/2005 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) 23655/2005 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 to set up a Public Se
Karnataka Karnataka PAN: AAACI4798L APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No. 245/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 201920 Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Infosys Limited Circle 3(1)(1) Plot 44, Konappana Agrahara Room NO. 241, 2nd Floor Hosur Road, Konappana BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road Vs. Bangalore 560100 6th Block, Koramangala Karnataka Bangalore 560095 Karnataka PAN: AAACI4798L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sri Padam Chand Khincha CA Department by : Smt. Srinandini Das CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025 ORDER PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These cross appeals are filed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short "Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023 24/1056786183(1) dated 05.10.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") for the A.Y.201920. ITA No.881/Bang/2023 ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited Page 2 of 34 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. General Ground 1.1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as CIT (A) for short) has erred in passing the order under section 250 in the manner passed by him. The order so passed to the extent prejudicial to the appellant is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Adjustment of loss and turnover (export turnover & total turnover) of loss making 10AA unit with the profit making 10AA units: 2.1. The learned NFAC has erred in adjusting the loss and turnover of 10AA unit (Hubballi) amounting to Rs 4,18,33,747 and Rs.17,94,717 respectively from the profit & turnover of 10AA100% eligible units while computing deduction under section 10AA without specifying any reason in the show cause notice and order and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 2.2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the Explanation to below subsection 1 of section 10AA without appreciating that the said Explanation is applicable only at the stage of allowing deduction under section 10AA from the total income and it is not applicable at the stage of computation of deduction under section 10AA in respect of profits of each SEZ unit. 2.3. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the losses and turnover of the loss making 10AA unit should not be adjusted with the profit making 10AA eligible units for the claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Act. 3. Ground relating to disallowance of deduction under section 10AA: 3.1. The learned NAC and the CIT(A) has erred in reducing the following incomes from profits of the business of SEZ units in computing deduction under section 10AA for the reason that the said incomes are not derived from the activity of software development and export. i) Interest on nonconvertible debentures (NCDs) amounting to Rs. 259,59,73,228 ii) Insurance claim received in respect of flood in Chennai during
Madras High Court Cognizant Technology Solutions India ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 August, 2021 W.P.No.10051 of 2015 DATED :02.08.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.10051 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Menon Eternity Building, 6th Floor, New No.165, Old No.110, St.Mary's Road, Chennai – 600 018. ...Petitioner Vs 1.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer UnitI, 1775, Jawaharwal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, Chennai – 600 101. 2.Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer UnitI 1775, Jawaharwal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, Chennai – 600 101. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records and proceedings of the case and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof be pleased to quash the Impugned Notice dated 28 March 2014 issued under 1/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.10051 of 2015 Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 200708 by the respondent No.1 and the Impugned Order(s), disposing of Objections dated 5 June 2014 and 29 December 2014 passed by the respondent No.1, as being wholly without jurisdiction and legally invalid. For Petitioner : Mr.Tushar Jarwal For Mr.A.K.Raghavulu and Mr.Rahul Sateeja For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing counsel [For R1 & R2] ORDER The writ on hand filed, challenging the validity of the notice dated 28.03.2014 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'] for the Assessment Year 200708 and the order, disposing of the objection passed by the Assessing authority on 05.06.2014 and 29.12.2014. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner commenced his arguments by stating that the writ petition is filed, challenging the legality and the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 147/148 of the Act to reassess the alleged escaped income for the Assessment Year 200708. 2/40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.10051 of 2015 3. The petitioner is a Private Limited company engaged inter alia in the business of providing software development, maintenance and information technology services to its overseas entities business. Admittedly, the return of income for the Assessment Year 200708 along with Form 3CEB was filed. The petitioner has submitted all the Books of Accounts, materials relevant for the purpose of assessment and further, clarified the doubts raised by the Assessing authority. The final assessment order was passed by the first respondent on 24.10.2011 and deduction under
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 00:27:16 ::: 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 00:27:16 ::: 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