abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
the timelines as mentioned in the LOA and due to which the project was delayed and the commissioning certificate could only be issued on 30.07.2015. The Respondent submitted bank guarantee on 08.02.2014 i.e. after 42 days of the issue of LOA which is to be done within 30 days. The Respondent as per Clause 18 was under obligation to provide the Petitioner with Master PERT Network i.e. Organization Chart for performance of the Project. The Respondent fails to provide the detailed drawings in timeline and submitted on 16.04.2014 which was approved on 29.04.2014. The detailed billing schedule for approval of the Petitioner was submitted after a period of more than six months. On 12.09.2014, the Respondent requested the officials of the Petitioner to conduct a predispatch inspection. Pursuant to which, inspection was conducted on 22.09.2014 and gave dispatch clearance on 30.09.2014. However, even after receiving the clearance on 30.09.2014, the material was received at Rourkela Steel Plant only on 22.11.2014. 3. On 29.09.2014, respondent requested for extension of duration of completion of Project however, despite being aware that the Project was for the final package, the petitioner vide letter dated 30.09.2014 extended the duration of Project till 30.11.2014. On 14.11.2014, respondent again requested for extension of completion period of the Project till 31.01.2015 which was accepted by the petitioner. Thereafter on 23.01.2015, the Respondent again sought extension which was again granted. 4. In the meanwhile on 25.02.2015 petitioner informed through letter Arbtn 219/18 Dt. 22.03.2024 Page no. 2 Of 41 Dy. General Manager (MM) Proj. RSP. SAIL Vs. M/s Monotech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. that it is facing difficulty in testing the EPN System due to reasons attributable to the respondent, however respondent requested additional time to respond. Then on 27.02.2015, the petitioner in clear terms stated the defects in the EPN System should be corrected by 10.03.2015 failing which, the petitioner may be forced to take alternate action including executing the job at Respondent's Risk and Cost. However, despite requests made in clear terms, the Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the letter. Thereafter on 13.03.2015 the Petitioner sent an email to the Respondent that they are proceeding with the Risk Purchase Action for commissioning of EPN System. On 09.05.2015, the Petitioner again sent an email stating that the EPN System supplied does not meet the functional requirement as per technical specifications, therefore, Respondents are requested to depute their competent engineer by 15.05.2015 to demonstrate reliable operation of EPN System failing which the EPN System supplied by the respondent shall be rejected and the cost will be recovered from the Respondent itself. Meanwhile, the Petitioner again extended the period of completion of Project till 25.05.2015. Thereafter, it was extended on request of the Respondent till 25.09.2015. 5. On 16.06.2015 and 20.06.2015, Respondent
Delhi District Court Fratelli Wines Pvt. Ltd vs Morning Stores (Nkm) Pvt. Ltd on 9 September, 2025 1 IN THE COURT OF SH. BHUPESH KUMAR: DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURTS)05, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI CS (Comm) No. 3914/24 Fratelli Wines Private Limited An incorporated Company having its registered office at: 18, South Drive Way, DLF Farms, Chhatarpur, New Delhi 110074 Through its Authorized Signatory: Mr. Harkesh Narang Email: [email protected] ......... Plaintiff VERSUS Morning Stores (NKM) Private Limited An incorporated Company having its registered office at: M41, M Block Market Greater Kailash Part 1, New Delhi 110048 Also, At: 802, Tower D, Ibiza Town, Surajkund Road, Sector 39, Faridabad, Haryana121009 Through its Directors: Mr. Nand Kishore Malik Mr. Agosh Malik Mr. Gagan Malik Email: [email protected] ........... Defendant Date of Institution : 03.12.2024 Date of Arguments : 09.09.2025 Date of Judgment : 09.09.2025 JUDGMENT Digitally signed by Bhupesh Bhupesh kumar Date: CS (COMM) 3914/2024 kumar Bhupesh2025.09.09 Kumar 16:58:02 District Judge(Commercial)05, Saket Courts, South East/09.09.2025 +0530 2 1. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff Fratelli Wines Private Limited seeking recovery of sum of Rs.22,02,705.71 alongwith pendente lite and future interest against defendant Morning Stores (NKM) Private Limited. 2. The brief facts of the matter as emerged from the plaint are that plaintiff is a Private Limited Company and also registered under the MSME Act. It has been further submitted that plaintiff is engaged in business of production and trading high quality wines in India. Defendant approached the plaintiff for supply of Wines produced by plaintiff in his store situated at Greater Kailash PartI, Delhi. It has been further submitted that relying upon representation made by defendant, the plaintiff has sold, supplied his goods to the defendant, as per their requirements in the months of August, 2019 to December, 2019. As per terms, the defendant was required to make the entire payment of said goods within 30 days of its delivery, failing which defendant shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum. It has been further submitted that from August, 2019 till February, 2020 the defendant has made part payments of small amounts only and a sum of Rs.17,27,371/ are still outstanding against defendant. It has been further submitted that defendant has not cleared the outstanding amount despite various followups and demands by plaintiff. It has been further submitted that plaintiff has served a legal notice dated 15.04.2021 calling upon defendant to make the payment of outstanding dues, but of no avail. It has been further submitted that defendant is also liable to make payment of sum of Rs.4,75,334.65 towards agreed interest @ 18% per annum from 21.02.2020 till 31.08.201, and as such defendant is liable to pay a total Digitally signed by Bhupesh Bhupesh kumar CS (COMM) 3914/2024 kumarBhupesh Date: Kumar 2025.09.09 District Judge(Commercial)05, Saket Courts, South East/09.09.2025 16:58:10 +0530
Calcutta High Court M/S vs K. Patel And Co on 31 January, 2023 ODC 12 ORDER SHEET EC/391/2022 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL DIVISION M/S. V. K. PATEL AND CO. VS SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHEKHAR B. SARAF Date: 31st January, 2023. Appearance: Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Avishek Guha, Adv, Ms. Akansha Chopra, Adv. Mr. Snehashis Sen, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Banerjee, Adv. The Court: The award debtor disputes the interest calculation. In light of the same, the petitioner is directed to give a complete breakup of the interest that has been charged as per Section 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006 by way of a supplementary affidavit within a period of one week. Let this matter appear two weeks hence. (SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.) sp/
Amrapali Fincap Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellants : Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Johri, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma and Ms. Mrigangi Parul, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Kunal Godhwani and Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates for R3. Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Ajatshatru Singh Rawat, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari and Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates. Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha and Mr. Gautam Goel, Advocates for R1/RP. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1172 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Amrapali Fincap Ltd. ...Appellant(s) Versus Krit Narayan Mishra, RP, ...Respondent(s) JC World Hospitality (P) Ltd. & Ors Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Ajatshatru Singh Rawat, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari and Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Johri, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma and Ms. Mrigangi Parul, Advocates for R2 and R3. Mr. Kunal Godhwani and Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates for R2. Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha, Advocates for R1/RP. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1200 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Krit Narayan Mishra, RP, ...Appellant(s) JC World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Versus Amrapali Fincap Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha and Mr. Gautam Goel, Advocates. Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Johri, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma and Ms. Mrigangi Parul, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Mr. Gautam Goel and Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates for R2. Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Ajatshatru Singh Rawat, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari and Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates for R1. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1552 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Abishek Nath Sarvaria ...Appellant(s) Versus JC World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Johri, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma and Ms. Mrigangi Parul, Advocates. 2 of 74 For Respondents : Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Ajatshatru Singh Rawat, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates for R2. Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Gautam Goel and Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha, Advocates for R1. JUDGMENT ( 7th November, 2025 ) Ashok Bhushan, J. All these Appeals arises out of order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi, Court IV in IA No.6035 of 2024, IA No.1301 of 2025, IA No.850 of 2022 in CP (IB) No.256/ND/2019. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these Appeals are: 2.1. The Corporate Debtor M/s. J.C. World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. is an MSME engaged in developing Real Estate. By order dated 13.12.2019, the Corporate Debtor has been admitted to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on application filed by the Financial Creditors in Class under Section 7. Resolutio
Delhi High Court M /S Amit Exports vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 November, 2024 * % Judgment reserved on: 14 August 2024 Judgment pronounced on: 22 November 2024 + W.P.(C) 14477/2022 & CM APPL. 44224/2022 (Stay) DESIGNCO .....Petitioner Through: Mr. P. C. Patnaik, Mr. Hemant Mishra & Ms. Ankita Sarangi Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil and Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, GP for UOI. Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, SPC with Mr. Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Raghav Bakshi, Adv. for Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC for R2, R4 & R5. + W.P.(C) 17314/2022 & CM APPL. 55055/2022 (Interim Relief) M /S AMIT EXPORTS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Madhav Bhatia, Mr. Shreshth Arya, Mr. Shreuss Shankar Joshi and Mr. Rohan Anand, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil and Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, GP for UOI. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, SSC along with Mr. Aman Tripathi, Ms. Neha Aggarwala Ms. Pooja Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14477/2022 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 91 By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:22.11.2024 18:13:24 Bhaskar, Advs. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Mishra and Mr. Apoorva Singh, Advs. for R11. + W.P.(C) 17328/2022 & CM APPL. 55093/2022 (Interim Relief) M/S SHARMA INTERNATIONAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Madhav Bhatia, Mr. Shreshth Arya, Mr. Shreuss Shankar Joshi and Mr. Rohan Anand, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil and Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, GP for UOI. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Mishra and
Karnataka High Court Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd vs A Prabhakara Reddy on 11 September, 2023 1 NC: 2023:KHCK:7285 WP No. 201900 of 2023 R KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.201900/2023 (GMCPC) BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD., (GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD., K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD., CANAL ZONE NO.1, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI TQ. SHAHAPURA, DIST. YADGIR 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD., Digitally signed NRBC DIVISION NO.4 by CHIKKAHONNAKUNI NARAYANAPPA TQ. DEODURGA, DIST. RAICHUR LAKSHMAMMA ...PETITIONERS Location: HIGH (BY SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. A. PRABHAKARA REDDY AGE: 69 YEARS OCC: CLASSI CONTRACTOR R/O. FLAT NO.404, BHANU ENCLAVE SUNDER NAGAR, ERRAGADDA HYDERABAD 500038 REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 2 NC: 2023:KHCK:7285 WP No. 201900 of 2023 P. CHANDRAMOULI S/O P. VENKATARMA SASTRY AGE: 62 YEARS OCC: CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER APRCL R/O. FLAT NO.101 RAMABHADRA TOWERS H.NO.71 28/4/ 1 AMEERPET, HYDERABAD500016 2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE 560001 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R2 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A.NO.XI, DATED 13.06.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND COMMERCIAL COURT, RAICHUR, IN COMMERCIAL O.S.NO.1/2018 AT ANNEXURED TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.07.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. The petitioners who are defendant Nos.1 to 3 in Commercial O.S.No.1/2018 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge and Commercial Court, Raichur, are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: 3 NC: 2023:KHCK:7285 WP No. 201900 of 2023 a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order on I.A.No.XI dated 13.06.2023 passed by the Court of Prl. District & Sessions Judge and Commercial Court, Raichur, in Commercial O.S.No.1/2018 at AnnexureD to the Writ Petition. b. Issue any other Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Respondent No.1 had filed the aforesaid suit in Commercial O.S.No.1/2018 seeking for the following reliefs: a. Directing the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff an amount of Rs.57,48,47,26400 (Rupees Fiftyseven crores, forty eight lakhs, forty seven thousand two hundred and sixty four only) including an interest of 12% P.A., as quantified as on 22.3.2018 with future interest of 12% P.A., till its realisation, through the process of this Hon'bl
Orissa High Court WP(C)/1120/2021 on 19 January, 2021 W.P.(C) No. 1120 of 2021 02 19.01.2021 The matter is taken up through video conferencing mode. Heard Mr. D. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the award dated 16.11.2019 under Annexure9 passed by the Director of Industries, Chairman, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Department, Govt. of Odisha by which direction has been given to the petitioner to pay the principal amount of Rs.5,63,142/ (Rupees five lakh sixty three thousand one hundred forty two) only and interest claim of Rs.14,92,694.99/ (fourteen lakhs ninety two thousand six hundred ninety four and ninety nine paisa) only calculated up to 31.10.2019 as per Section 15 and 16 of MSMED Act, 2006. After advancing some arguments, Mr. D. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to approach the appropriate forum in view of arbitration clause as per Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner as aforesaid. Alok .................................. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE 2
1.Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Jaipur (Third), Office of Commissioner of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan302 005. 2.M/s.Purma Plast Private Limited, Represented by Sri Raghuveer Sharma, B494, RIICO Industrial Area, Phase I, Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan. ... Respondents 1/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1792 of 2021 Prayer : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order, dated 08.06.2021 made in W.P.No.12230 of 2021. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Gopinathan For R2 : Mr.Abishek Jenasenan JUDGMENT ************ [Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.DHANABAL, J.] This appeal has been preferred as against the order passed in W.P.No.12230 of 2021 wherein, the appellant herein has filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in Case No.RJ/02/S/00630 award, dated 17.03.2020 and quash the same. 2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1792 of 2021 2. The writ petition was filed by this appellant challenging the award, dated 23.10.2019 passed against the petitioner by the Arbitral Tribunal, (i.e.,) Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council on the ground that the procedures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act have not been followed and no notice was served to the petitioner for commencement of arbitral proceedings. Without serving notice, arbitral proceedings cannot be commenced and the averment of arbitrator itself has not been communicated to the petitioner and without giving opportunity to the petitioner, the ex parte award was passed by the Council. 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the sides dismissed the writ petition by holding that the very same award has been challenged by the same petitioner before this Court in O.P.No.443 of 2020 and the said OP was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 10.12.2020 on the ground of delay in challenging the award and as against the same, 3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1792 of 2021 O.S.A.No.101 of 2021 is preferred and the same is pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is not
M/S ASSOCIATED POWER STRUCTURES PVT. LTD. & ANR. Appearance: MR ANILKUMAR ADITYA for URVESH K GOR(7448) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 05/02/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI) 1. By way of present petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by the 4 th Additional District Judge, Vadodara (Commercial Court), (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Commercial Court, Vadodara") in Commercial CMA No. 31 of 2021 below Exhibit12, rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1996"). Page 1 of 24 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:12:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/888/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern and is inter alia engaged in the business of providing manpower for labour work. The petitioner is working on subcontract basis. The respondent no. 1 herein (hereinafter referred as the "respondent") is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 inter alia engaged in the business of constructing and installing heavy electronic cable lines and poll. The respondent had given work order to supply manpower to the petitioner for their work which was going on in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no written agreement between the petitioner and the respondent or any Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). However, the work was allotted to the petitioner only upon the "work order", issued by the respondent. 2.1. It was the case of the petitioner that the firm had completed the work as per the work order and some payment was made by the respondent. However, part payment was withheld by the respondent on the plea of fabricated allegation against the petitioner. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petition
Delhi High Court Extramarks Education India Pvt Ltd vs Jay Jalaram Education Trust & Ors on 13 May, 2025 $~O2 * + ARB.P. 1096/2024 Date of Decision: 13.05.2025 IN THE MATTER OF: EXTRAMARKS EDUCATION INDIA PVT LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: MR. JAVED ANSARI, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 506, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, 19 K.G. MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI 110001 CORPORATE OFFICE AT: 09TH TO 14TH FLOOR, URMILA BUSINESS PARK, A 95B, SECTOR 136, NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH201304 .....Petitioner (Through: Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi, Mr. Ankit Parashar and Ms. Mitali Yadav and Mr. Saurav Sapra, Advs.) versus JAY JALARAM EDUCATION TRUST THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE/CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, ANANDBORIAVI ROAD, NEAR SK CINEMA, BORIAVI, DISTRICT, ANAND, GUJARAT38731 0 ALSO AT: SHIVALYA BALASINOR HIGHWAY, POST MAINPURA, PADAL, KHEDA, GALTESHWAR, GUJARAT388235 ....Respondent No.1 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signed Signing Date:22.05.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 17:46:04 KUMAR KAURAV JAY JALARAM INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL/ AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, SEVALIABALASINOR HIGHWAY ROAD, NR. THERMAL POWER STATION CHOKDI, ATPADAL. TATHASRA, DIST: KHEDA, GUJARAT388235 ....Respondent No.2 TAKSHASHILA VIDYALAYA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL/ AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, SEVALIABALASINOR HIGHWAY ROAD, ATPADAL, POMENPURA, TATHASRA, GUJARAT388235 Also At: ANANDBORIAVI ROAD, BORIAVI, GUJRAT388001 ....Respondent No.3 JAY JALARAM SCHOOL THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL/ AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, GODHARA DAHOD HIGHWAY CHOKDI, AT: PARAVADI, DAHOD ROAD, TA. GODHARA, DISTRICT PANCH MAHAL, GUJARAT389001 ....Respondent No.4 JAY JALARAM INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL/ AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ANANDBORIAVI ROAD, BORIAVI, GUJRAT388001 ....Respondent No.5 JAY JALARAM INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signed Signing Date:22.05.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 17:46:04 KUMAR KAURAV THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL/ AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ANANDBORIAVI ROAD, NEAR SK CINEMA, BORIAVI, DISTRICT, ANAND, GUJARAT387310 ....Respondent No. 6 (Through: Mr. Humraz Bir Singh, Adv.) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. There seems to be five agreements between the petitioner and respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.