abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
matter be taken up for hearing on the date fixed, but as the Appellant Counsel has sought for adjournments to place some Judgements in support of his case, and the matter was taken up finally on 13.01.2022 and heard at length. 3. Submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant: • It is submitted that the Insolvency Application under Section 7 of the Code was filed on 03.07.2018, which is more than three years after the 'Corporate Debtor' was declared as NPA on 30.03.2015 and hence is 'barred by Limitation'. The Learned Counsel relied on the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Babulal Vardharji Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 909 of 2020 & I.A. Nos. 2947, 2948 of 2020 3 Gurjar' Vs. 'Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Private Limited & Anr.' (2020) 15 SCC 1, 'Laxmi Pat Surana' Vs. 'Union Bank of India and Anr.' (2021) 8 SCC 481, and in 'B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd.' Vs. 'Parag Gupta & Associates', (2019) 11 SCC 633. • As the 'Corporate Debtor' falls into the new classification criteria of MSME, the benefit of exemption under Section 240A of the Code should have been availed by the Resolution Professional ('RP') for the benefit of the 'Corporate Debtor'; more so because the Notification dated 26.06.2020 was prior to the date of the Impugned Order (17.08.2020). • The decision of CoC for Liquidation not being justiciable, is not an issue in the present case, but rather the eligibility in view of the MSME Notification is the primary issue. • The matter of Resolution of an MSME must be weighed in light of the recent Amendments vide Notification dated 26.06.2020. Before the passing of the Impugned Order, the MSME Act, 2006, was amended with effect from 01.07.2021 wherein a new threshold for classification of MSME entities was prescribed. As a result of the said Amendment, the 'Corporate Debtor' fell within the definition of MSME now the maximum limit for plant and machinery investment is increased to Rs.50 Crs. for a medium enterprise. • While the entire effor
1. Union of India, rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, MOC& IT, Department of Posts, New Delhi110 001. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Telangana Circle, Hyderabad500 001. 3. The Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad500 001. 4. The Supdt. Of Post Offices, Khammam Division, Khammam507 003. ....Respondents (By Advocate Mrs.K.Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG) P a g e | 1 of 31 OA.Nos.776 & 777/2019 O.A.No.020/0777/2019 1. Ch.Lakshminarayana, GrC, S/o Saambasiva Rao, Aged 42 yrs, Occ:GDS BPM, Kanaparru BO, A/w Satuluru SO, R/o Kanaparru Village, Circle Secretary NUGDS AP Circle. 2. Syed Basheerunnisa Begum, GrC, w/o Thaher Pasha, Aged 43 yrs, Occ:GDS BPM KV Padu BO, a/w Malikipuram SO, R/o Malkipuram Amalapuram Dn AP. 3. Alluri Venkata Raju GrC, S/o Sathyanarayana raju, Aged 60 years, Occ:GDS BPM, Mogallaaaaaaaaaaa BO, A/w Bendamuri Lanka SO, R/o Mogallamuri village, Amalapuram Dn AP. 4. M.Sridhar Reddy, GrC, S/o Venkata Reddy, Aged 42 yrs, Occ:GDS BPM, Vemavaram BO, a/w Phirangipuram SO, R/o Vemavaram Village, Narasaraopet DN AP. ...Applicants (By Advocate Mr.B.Gurudas) Vs. 1. Union of India, rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, MOC& IT, Department of Posts, New Delhi110 001. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, AP Circle, Vijayawada520 013.. 3. The Postmaster General, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam5. 4. The Postmaster General, Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada 520 013. 5. The Supdt. Of Post Offices, Narasaraopet Division, Narasaraopet. 6. The Supdt. Of Post Offices, Amalapuram Division, Amalapuram. ....Respondents (By Advocate Mrs.B.Gayatri Varma, Sr.CGSC) P a g e | 2 of 31 OA.Nos.776 & 777/2019 ORDER PER HON‟BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these OAs, the same are being disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The applicants in both the OAs have challenged the action on the part of the respondents in denying them the pay and allowances/wages for 8.00 hrs duty for the work done on par with the regular employees in violation of the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ enshrined under Article 39(D) of the Constitution of India and sought for the following relief: "To call for the records pertaining to denial of pay and allowances by the respondents for the 8.00 hrs work done by the applicants and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rules and instructions prescribed and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Articles 14, 21 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India, and direct the respondents to grant pay and allowances for 8.00 hrs on par with the regular Departmental employees performing similar and identical duties, not less than the pay of MTS (Rs.18,000/) with effect from the date from which they are performing such duties, and pass such other order or other orders as this Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case a
1. Complaint Case No. : 15978/09 2. Name of the complainant : M/s. Muthoot Leasing Finance Ltd., Corporate Office at 1 & 3C, White House, 10, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi­110 001 3. Name of the accused and his : 1. M/s. Jai Mata Tours parentage and residence & Travels, (Through its partners), A­99/1, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi­110 052 2. Shri Mani Ram S/o Shri Mohan Lal Partner M/s. Jai Mata Tours & Travels, A­99/1, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi­110 052 2 CC No. 15978/09 3. Ms. Shashi Bala Partner M/s. Jai Mata Tours & Travels, A­99/1, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi­110 052 4. Ms. Preeti Bala Partner M/s. Jai Mata Tours & Travels, A­99/1, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi­110 052 4. Offence complained of or proved: U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 6. Final Order : Accused Nos. 1&2: Convicted Accused No. 3 and 4: Acquitted 7. Date of Order : 26.11.2011 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 1. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its corporate office at New Delhi. Shri L.D. Sharma 3 CC No. 15978/09 has been authorized by the competent authority of the company to sign, verify and institute the present complaint through Power of Attorney which is Ex.CW1/2 vide Board Resolution true copy of which is Ex.CW1/1. 2. It is stated in the complaint that the accused No. 1 acting through accused Nos. 2 to 4 obtained on hire purchase basis an Ambassador Car vide a written agreement between the parties. The accused persons were bound to pay monthly hire charges as per the schedule of payment of the hire purchase agreement. It is further averred in the complaint that the accused in discharge of his part liability issued four cheques in question bearing cheque Nos. 644192, 644193, 644194 & 644195 respectively which are Ex.CW1/4 to Ex.CW1/7, all drawn on Central Bank of Ind
Delhi High Court Dobariya Mohit Ramnikal vs Department Of Higher Education & Anr. on 1 July, 2024 $~ * Reserved on: 29 May 2024 Pronounced on: 1 July 2024 + W.P.(C) 4100/2023 DOBARIYA MOHIT RAMNIKAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Adv. versus DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anirudh Bhat, Ms. Gayatri Virmani, Ms. Kavita Nailwal and Ms. Disha Gupta, Advs. for R2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT % 01.07.2024 W.P.(C) 4100/2023 1. The petitioner is vexed at the fact that, despite having obtained a M. Arch.1 qualification from the School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, University of Maryland, USA, he is not being allowed to enrol as an Architect in India. 2. The petitioner obtained his B. Tech qualification in Civil Engineering from the Charotar University of Science & Technology, Gujarat on 5 December 2015. He, thereafter, joined the M. Arch. course in the School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, 1 Masters in Architecture Signature Not Verified WP (C) 4100/2023 Page 1 of 32 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed KUMAR By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:01.07.2024 Signing Date:01.07.2024 18:50:15 18:52:46 University of Maryland, in 2016. Though the M. Arch. course in the University of Maryland is ordinarily of 2 years duration, the petitioner was made to undergo a course for 3½ years in order to study the subjects relating to architecture, which were not part of the B. Tech program undertaken by him from the Charotar University. The petitioner had, therefore, to undergo seven semesters of the M. Arch course in the University of Maryland, which he successfully cleared. He was awarded the degree of M. Arch by the University of Maryland on 17 December 2019. 3. During the tenure of his M. Arch course in the University of Maryland, the petitioner also underwent compulsory internship with XL Constructions LLC from 23 October 2017 to 23 January 2018. A certificate in that regard was also issued by XL Constructions, which has been placed on record. 4. On 17 December 2019, a certificate was issued by the Associate Dean for Development and Faculty Affairs, University of Maryland, certifying that the petitioner had successfully completed the M. Arch course and conferred the M. Arch. degree. The certificate also noted that the M. Arch. degree was accredited by the National Architecture Accrediting Board2 as a professional degree in architecture in December 2019. 5. The petitioner, thereafter, returned to India and applied to the 2 "NAAB" hereinafter Signature Not Verified WP (C) 4100/2023 Page 2 of 32 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed KUMAR
1.M/s.Bindhu Techflow Solutions Private Limited, No.2/344, S.No.208/1B, No.57, Thorapakkam Road, Gerugambakkam, Chennai122. 2.Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region, rep by its Chairman, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai32. .. Respondents This original petition is filed under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) and (2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking (a) to set aside the final order dated 11.7.2018 passed by the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council in MSEFC/CR/78/2017, second respondent herein and (b) pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem 1/20 http://www.judis.nic.in O.P.No.254 of 2020 fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh For Respondents : No appearance ORDER Captioned 'Original Petition' (hereinafter 'OP' for the sake of brevity) is an application under section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity. 2 In captioned OP, an 'arbitral award dated 11.07.2018 bearing reference MSEFC/CR/78/2017' (hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of convenience and clarity) made by 'Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council' (hereinafter 'said Council' for the sake of brevity and convenience) has been assailed. 2/20 http://www.judis.nic.in O.P.No.254 of 2020 3 In the physical hearing today, Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel on record for the sole petitioner is before this Court, but there is no representation for the two respondents though this Court is informed that they have been duly served and their names together with full / complete addresses as in short and long cause titles as in the captioned OP have been shown in the cause list. To be noted, this court issued notice in the captioned OP vide proceedings dated 02.06.2020 and this Court is informed that notices have been duly served, but respondents have not chosen to respond and/or enter appearance through counsel, though this matter was listed as many as seven times thereafter, i.e., on 20.07.2020, 22.07.2020, 29.07.2020, 05.08.2020, 16.09.2020, 30.09.2020 and 06.10.2020. To be noted, this is the 8th consecutive hearing/listing, in which respondents have not chosen to come before this Court. It is also to be noted that out of these eight hearings/listings (including this physical hearing today), six hearings/listings were virtual hearings which were duly notified in the cause list and 2 hearings are physical hearings
1.Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Rep. by its Secretary/Regional Joint Director of Industries and Commerce, A30, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. 2.M/s.Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited, Registered Office: No.302, Royal house, No:11/3, Usha Ganj, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India – 452 001. 3.M/s.Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited, Head Office: D3D6, Addl. MIDC. Area, Aurangabad Road, Jalna, Maharashtra, India – 431 213. 4.M/s.Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited, Corporate Office: Sai Capital Building, 9th floor, Opp Hotel J.W.Marriott, Senapati Bapat Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra, India – 411 016. … Respondents Page No.1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm ) W.P.No.39262 of 2024 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to expeditiously dispose the MSEFC/CR/245/2023 pending on the file of the first respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.I.M.Siddartha Ramarajan For Respondent 1 : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, Government Advocate For Respondents 2 to 4 : M/s.T.Sharmila Jain ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the first respondent to expeditiously dispose the MSEFC/CR/245/2023 pending on the file of the first respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's firm, M/s.Littles Agrivet Private Limited, specializes in polymer seed coating technology and is classified as a Micro/Small Enterprise under the MSMED Act, 2006, with UDYAM registration number UDYAMTN240014148. The firm supplied goods worth Rs.58,96,207/ to respondents 2 to 4, who have failed to make payments, leading to an outstanding amount of Rs.79,11,462/, including Page No.2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm ) W.P.No.39262 of 2024 interest of Rs. 20,15,255/. The petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of the MSMED Act on 08.05.2023 before the first respondent, which was registered as MSEFC/CR/245/2023. Despite due service, respondents 2 to 4 failed to cooperate in the proceedings. Only four hearings were conducted over 1.5 years, and adjudication details are unavailable on the MSME SAMADHAAN website. As per Section 18(5) of the MSMED Act, the case should have been decided within 90 days, but no finality has been reached. Since the first respondent has not disposed of the application withing the prescribed period, the petitioner is left with no option but to approach this Court for a speedy resolution.
Accused : Sri.Girish, S/o Shriramu, Age 38 years, R/at.No.E429/297, B.D.A.Extension, 2nd Stage, 3rd Block, Malagalu Village, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru 560 091. Business address: SELECT your choice, No.12, Shop No.1, Ramachandra Complex, RMV 2nd Stage, Chikkamaranahalli, New BEL Road, Bengaluru 560 094. { By Sri.Girish.B.N. Advocate } Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Accused is Acquitted Date of Order : 02112022 3 C.C.8893/2018 JUDGMENT The present complaint is filed under section 2(d) read with section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act"). 02. The factual matrix of the complaint is summarized as under; It is the cases of the complainant that, he has been carrying money lending business by obtaining necessary license from the competent authority. It is his further case that, the accused was one of his good customer and he was in need of money for the development of his textile business. Accordingly, on 02.11.2016, the accused had borrowed hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/ from him under loan account No.DPN 231 and has agreed to repay the loan amount within 12 months together with interest at the rate of 16% per annum and also has executed on demand promissory 4 C.C.8893/2018 note and other loan documents. It is alleged that, after the expiry of time fixed for repayment, the accused had approached the accused and demanded to repay the loan amount together with interest, at that time the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.278418 dated 08.12.2017 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/ drawn on Corporation Bank, Rajmahal Vilas Extension Branch, Bengaluru 560 094 in favour of the complainant. On 16.01.2018, the complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker, Karnataka Bank Ltd., Peenya Branch, Bengaluru, but it returned unpaid with banker's endorsement dated 17.01.2018 as "Drawer's signature differs". On 15.02.2018, the complainant has issued demand notice to the accused through RPAD and courier and the notice sent through RPAD at business address of accused was duly served on the accused on 17.02.2018. The legal notice sent to the residential address of the accused through RPAD returned with postal shara "Left, returned to sender" dated 5 C.C.8893/2018 19.02.2018. Inspite of service of legal notice, the accused neither has paid the cheque amount nor has given any reply. On these grounds, it is sought to convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and grant compensation as per section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 03. O
Delhi High Court M/S Total Application Software Co Pvt ... vs M/S Ashoka Distillers And Chemicals Pvt ... on 27 May, 2025 $~60 * % Date of decision: 27th May, 2025 + ARB.P. 206/2025 M/S TOTAL APPLICATION SOFTWARE CO PVT LTD TASC .....Petitioner Through: Mr. K.S. Negi and Mr. Nikhil Rajput, Advocates. versus M/S ASHOKA DISTILLERS AND CHEMICALS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Vinita Sasidharan, Mr. Vasu Vats and Ms. Aadya Malik, Advocates. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JUDGEMENT JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('1996 Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the parties. 2. Case of the Petitioner is that on 16.12.2022, Petitioner Company was registered as a Micro Enterprise in Ministry of Mirco, Small and Medium Enterprises. On 10.05.2023, Respondent placed a purchase order on the Petitioner for purchase of SAP Business One License and its implementation/AMC on terms and conditions mentioned in the Agreement. On invoices being sent for the work done, Respondent delayed and withheld payments of invoices dated 05.07.2024 and 16.07.2024 and other payments and despite itself being at fault, unlawfully terminated the license on 14.09.2024. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 206/2025 Page 1 of 11 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:03.06.2025 19:14:59 3. Petitioner avers that disputes having arisen, it sent a legal/invocation notice on 28.10.2024 proposing the name of a Sole Arbitrator since the Purchase Order contains Clause 14.1 providing reference of disputes arising in respect of the license to arbitration. This notice was returned unserved, whereafter Petitioner sent another notice by Speed Post on 14.11.2024 at the registered address of the Respondent, which was returned with the remark 'refused' and Petitioner had no option but to approach this Court. 4. Reply has been filed by the Respondent. Learned counsel for the Respondent takes a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that being a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise ('MSME'), Petitioner is bound to take recourse to the dispute resolution mechanism under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and Development Act, 2006 ('MSME Act'). It is urged that MSME Act is a special law, while 1996 Act is a general law and therefore, provisions of MSME Act will take precedence over 1996 Act. MSME Act governs specific nature of dispute arising between special categories of persons, to be resolved by following a specific process. Reliance is placed on Section 18 of MSME Act to support this plea. It is further urged that Section 24 of MSME Act clearly provides that being a special statute, provisions of Sections 15 to 23 of the said Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Learned counsel submits that this position of law is reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. Mahakali Foods Private Limited (Uni
Sh. Pramod Kumar Saini S/o Sh. Harbir Singh R/o 4/2991, Top Floor, Gali No.2, Shalimar Park Extension, Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi .... Defendant 1. CS No. : 1551/2016 2. CNR No. : DLSH010008592016 3. Under Section : Suit for recovery of Rs.75,00,000/. 4. Date of institution : 22/07/2013 5. Reserved for judgment : 29/11/2025 6. Date of Judgment : 27/01/2026 AND MISC DJ NO.281/2019 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER C.S. No.1551/2016 & MISC DJ No.281/19 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page 1 of 26 MOHAN Date: 2026.01.27 18:36:17 +0530 IN THE MATTER OF: Sh. Pramod Kumar Saini S/o Sh. Harbir Singh R/o 7D, Top Floor, Shivam Enclave, Jhilmil, Delhi95 .... Petitioner VERSUS Sh. O.P. Bhargava (Deceased) S/o Late Sh. P.N. Bhargava Represented through his legal representatives: a. Shri Pankaj Bhargava (son) b. Shri Sharad Bhargava Both resident of H. No.D389, 1st Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi110024 c. Smt. Preeti Bhargava Koundinya (Daughter) R/o E110, Shushant Lok, PhaseI, Gurgaon, Haryana ....Respondent 1. MISC DJ No. : 281/2019 2. CNR No. : DLSH010081712019 3. Under Section : Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 4. Date of institution : 16/12/2019 5. Reserved for judgment : 29/11/2025 6. Date of Judgment : 27/01/2026 JUDGMENT 1. Vide this common judgment, this Court shall dispose of the suit for recovery of Rs.75,00,000/ filed by plaintiff against defendant on 22/07/2013 and application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner against defendant on 16/12/2019. Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN C.S. No.1551/2016 & MISC DJ No.281/19 MOHAN Page 2 of 26 Date: 2026.01.27 18:36:22 +0530 AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT 2. Plaintiff is a doctor and he is aged about 76 years old. In the year 1996, defendant joined the service of plaintiff as a receptionistcumtelephone operator for a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/. Due to advancing age of plaintiff, he started relying a lot upon defendant and during the course of employment, plaintiff reposed utmost confidence and faith in the defendant. 3. Plaintiff owned a prime plot measuring 1400 sq. meters on New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh on which multistorey building was being constructed by him and defendant was looking after its construction work. The entire amount of the construction was spent from the means of plaintiff who had taken loans from the bank. 4. Defendant fraudulently and by forging some documents, presented a cheque of Rs.1 crore with his bankers on the pretext that the said cheque has been given by plaintiff in lieu of the alleged expenses on the construction have been born by defendant. On the basis of the said cheque, defendant fraudulently implicated plaintiff in a case under Section 138 of NI Act. 5. When the construction of the super structure was complete, defendant used his undue influence upon plaintiff to get a sum of Rs.75,00,000/ on which defendant in