abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai 600 003. 2.The Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. 3.G.Akila [Regn. No.2600001048] [3rd respondent was impleaded by order of this court dated 27.01.2022 made in W.M.P.No.1091 of 2022 in W.P.No.554 of 2022] https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 of 40 W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022 4.The Secretary to Government, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 003. [4th respondent was impleaded by order of this court dated 01.06.2023 made in W.M.P.No.32873 of 2022 in W.P.No.554 of 2022] ..... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned provisional selection list dated 08.02.2022 for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical) in Mircro, Small and Medium Enterprises (E1) Department included in Tamil Nadu Industries Service, 2019 issued by the 1st respondent as per Notification No.34 of 2019 dated 09.12.2019 and to quash the same insofar as pertaining to the 3rd respondent concerned and consequently direct the 1st respondent to select the petitioner for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical). [Originally, the writ petition challenged the ranking list dated 06.01.2022. Subsequently, the prayer has been amended by order dated 01.06.2023 made in W.M.P.No.32871 of 2022 in W.P.No.554 of 2022] W.P.No.6216 of 2022 Dhivya Janani.K. ..... Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai 600 003. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 of 40 W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022 2.The Secretary to the Government, Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 003. 3.The Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. 4.K.Kalai Selvi [Regn. No.2500001128] Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned provisional selection list dated 08.02.2022 for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical) in Micro, Small and Medium Enterpris
3.2. During hearing, it has been claimed that in the context of leather, softening of the fibres of leather is deemed to be lubricating leather in accordance with trade understanding as well as under HSN nomenclature. They also filed copies of certain case laws and a letter written by Central Leather Research Institute to the appellants which indicates that fat liquors are employed in leather processing for the purpose of lubrication of leather matrix and adding soft feel and handled to leathers. These are substances which are chemically active and serve to reduce inter fibre cohesion. Fat liquors have functional groups which interact with reactive centres in the leather and serve to alter the surface charges of leather matrices. These need to be classified strictly as lubricating preparations employed for softening of leathersfibres and matrices. They also filed copies of certain passages from technical books to claim support in (sic) this regard. 4.1. I have carefully gone through the records of the case. I find that some confusion has arisen on account of the tariff entry under chapter heading 34.03 distinguishing lubricating preparations (including cutting oil preparations, bold or nut release preparations, and mould release preparations based on lubricants) on the one hand, and preparations of a kind used in oil or grease treatment of textile materials, leather, furekins or other materials. Since the exemption notifications is worded so as cover only lubricating preparations, a controversy has arisen as to whether preparations of a kind used for oil or grease treatment of leather would come within the scope of lubricating preparations even if they happen to lubricate leather. According to the Chemistry of Fatliquoring Emulsions written by Clinton E.Rotzsch, in the Introduction, it is mentioned as follows: "Proper lubrication of leather is essential for its most effective utilisation. The mode of lubrication will depend on the type of leather under consideration and the ultimate purpose for which it is intended. Most lubrication procedures employ a water medium in which oil is carried into the leather by means of an emulsion". Further it is stated that, "Since leather must be lubricated by removing oil from water, the following broad definition will be most meaningful to the tanners an emulsion is a dispersion of the liquid in another, both liquids under normal circumstances being quite immiscible." In another chapter "Fatliquor practice and theory" written by Malcalm H.Battles, it is stated that, "Oil and greases incorporated into leather are generally classified as leather lubricants. To day there is a general agreement that the main function of the incorporated oil is to influence the degree of fiber cohesion which takes place during drying." "For many centuries, the leather lubricants were incorporated into the leather by simply smearing wet leather with mixtures of greases and oils. The use of oil in water emulsions, now called fatliquors, originated during the twentieth century." 4.2. All the above technical literature would clearly show that fatliquors are used as lubricating preparations to process leat
Madras High Court Penchalaiah Enterprises vs The State Tax Officer on 4 April, 2025 WP No. 23005 of 2024 DATED: 04042025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 23005 of 2024 AND WMP NO. 25090 OF 2024,WMP NO. 25088 OF 2024 Penchalaiah Enterprises, Rep by its proprietor, Penchalaiah, S/o.Penchalnian, 26, Sudhanthira Nagar 4th Street, Lloyds Road, Triplicane, Chennai – 600005. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Tax Officer Thiruvallikeni Assessment Circle, No.420, 4th Floor, Integrated Commercial Taxes And Registration Department Building, Nandanam, Chennai600 035. 2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Thiruvallikeni, South I, Chennai South. Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/05/2025 07:47:28 pm ) WP No. 23005 of 2024 PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records nd relating to the order of the 2 respondents in No.ZD331223192455H, dated nd 25.12.2023 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 2 respondents to give opportunity for the petitioner to settle the balance pending Total GST amount of Rs.52,25,572.36/ (Pending GST till date, excludes Interest and penalty) by the way installment. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Elankumaran For Respondent(s): Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader (t) ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the nd records relating to the order of the 2 respondents in No.ZD331223192455H, nd dated 25.12.2023 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 2 respondents to give opportunity for the petitioner to settle the balance pending Total GST amount of Rs.52,25,572.36/ (Pending GST till date, excludes Interest and penalty) by the way installment. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/05/2025 07:47:28 pm ) WP No. 23005 of 2024 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is having an Enterprises and their primary activity is to supply man power to Tvl.Royal Enfield and receive monthly payment for the same from the said trade creditors. The petitioner is 71 years old senior citizen and he illiterate person and thus he appointed some accountant in his office for the purpose of maintaining the tax properly. In such circumstances, the said persons failed to do their work properly and therefore, the petitioner was forced to relieve them. Due to the petitioner's age factor, he was frequently bedridden from 2017 and spent huge medical expenses for his treatment. Unfortunately, the staff person has not paid the sale tax regularly. This made the petitioner as defaulter to the respondents, which is neither willful nor wanton. Consequently, the respondents passed an ex parte impugned assessment order dated 25.12.20
Excise [1997 (89) ELT 3 (SC) : (1997) 2 SCC 78]. A Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 27.02.2004 doubted the correctness of the said decision opining that as a computer would not function without an operational software, the latter would form a part of the former and, thus, excise duty would be payable on the total value thereof. Distinguishing between softwares without which a computer cannot work and those containing additional or ancillary applications and which a customer may want to buy separately, the Bench observed: "But a buyer has to buy software without which the computer cannot work. The computer would otherwise be a dead box, if software, without which the computer cannot work, is not purchased. When one talks of a computer, as understood in the trade, it is not just the box or the hardware. A computer contains of both hardware and the operating software. The price of such softwares is thus the amount which a buyer is
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appearance: MR TUSHAR P HEMANI(2790) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 CHINTAN H DAVE(7193) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR(1010) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Page 1 of 55 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:12:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16691/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined Date : 25/06/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the respondent. 2. This group of petitions are filed challenging the show cause notice issued by the respondents Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and the Commissioner of Custom (Export) except in Special Civil Application No.5447/2016, Special Civil Application No.6869/2016 and Special Civil
Delhi High Court Ccs Computers Private Limited vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr on 8 August, 2025 $~ * % Date of Decision: 08th August, 2025 + W.P.(C) 11006/2024 and CM APPL. 45418/2024 CCS COMPUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoranjan Sharma, Mr. Rajat Joneja and Mr. Anmol Kumar, Advocates. versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates for R1/NDMC. Mr. Ashish Prasad, Mr. Sam C. Mathew and Ms. Madhuri Mittal, Advocates for R2. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JUDGEMENT JYOTI SINGH, J. 1. By this writ petition, Petitioner lays siege to letter/order dated 07.06.2024 issued by Respondent No. 1/New Delhi Municipal Council ('NDMC'), whereby Petitioner has been blacklisted by NDMC and debarred from participating in any bid in NDMC for a period of 02 years from the date of issue of the letter. Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to direct NDMC not to publish the impugned letter on its website or to take down the same, if already published as also not to take further coercive action during pendency of Complaint Case No. 3100/2024, titled 'CCS Computers Private Limited v. State & Ors.', pending before the Trial Court and return the bank guarantee amount. Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11006/2024 Page 1 of 52 Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:10.08.2025 21:54:49 2. Case set up by the Petitioner is that Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of providing IT services with vast experience in the industry. Petitioner has successfully provided IT related services to various Government entities including but not limited to Indian Navy, Army Headquarters Computer Centre, Ministry of Home Affairs, DRDO and Ministry of Science & Technology. Petitioner is a MSME organization duly registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. 3. It is averred that Education Department of NDMC vide Request for Proposal ('RFP') floated a tender for procurement of 4,159 preloaded electronic tablets on Government EMarketplace ('GeM') on 28.05.2022. To participate in the tender, Respondent No. 2/Datamini Technologies (India) Ltd., which was the 'Original Equipment Manufacturer' ('OEM'), authorized the Petitioner to negotiate and conduct the entire process of bidding on its behalf and for this purpose issued a bid specific Manufacturer's Authorization Form dated 21.06.2022. As per the authorization given by Respondent No. 2 through its representative namely, Sh. Chandan Kumar, Petitioner participated in the bidding process and submitted the bid along with requisite documents on GeM portal and also furnished a Bank Guarantee dated 22.06.2022, for a sum of Rs.18,71,550/ in favour of NDMC. 4. It is stated that after the bid was submitted, NDMC vide email dated 02.09.2022 informed the Petitioner that the Turnover Certificate of Respondent No. 2, submitted as part of the bid documents, appeared to be forged and Petitioner was asked to verify the correctness of the certificate. Shocked with this
M/s.Tata Motors Finance Ltd., ) a Company incorporated under Companies Act) 1956, having its Corporate office at Building A) 2nd Floor, Lodha 1 Think, Techno Campus, ) Off Pokhran Road 2, Thane (West), ) Thane 400 607. ) ..... Respondents ::: Downloaded on 04/03/2015 23:58:56 ::: Kvm 2/40 ARBP304.14 Mr.Rohan Cama, a/w. Mr.Sunil Chaturvedi for the Petitioner. Mr.Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate, a/w.Mr.Kingshuk Banerjee, Mr.Yuvraj Choksy, i/b. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. RESERVED ON : 18th FEBRUARY, 2015 PRONOUNCED ON : 4th MARCH, 2015 JUDGMENT : Admit. The respondents waive service. By consent of parties, matter is taken on board for final hearing. In view of the identical facts in all the eight petitions, by consent of parties all the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner in each of the petition aforesaid was the original respondent in the arbitration proceedings whereas the respondents herein were the original claimants. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 304 OF 2014 3. I will first summarize the facts in Arbitration Petition No.304 of 2014 which is the main matter which has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the said 'Arbitration Act'), the petitioner has impugned the arbtiral award dated 7th October, 2013 thereby allowing some of the claims made by the respondents. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under : 5. Sometime in the month of December 2009 the petitioner approached the respondents for a loan in the sum of Rs.19,64,000/for refinancing/purchasing the ::: Downloaded on 04/03/2015 23:58:56 ::: Kvm 3/40 ARBP304.14 vehicle. The respondents sanctioned the said loan and entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 30th December, 2009. The said loan amount with interest was repayable in the monthly installment of Rs.
1. Omega Electronics Scales Co. Ltd. and Anr 2. The Secretary Member Deputy Director of Industries Konkan Region, Thane and Ex Office Chairman MI ... ... Respondent/s For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sanchay Srivastava CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER 9 23042024 Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner has challenged for quashing the order dated 21.03.2023 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 38 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the Member Secretary, the Deputy Director of Industries, Konkan Region, Thane Mumbai has passed order with directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 43,99,943/ along with interest on each and every due amount of the invoice, when became payable after deduction of 30 days, as per Section of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the MSMED Act, 2006), till the release of the amount of the petitioner. And further prayed to issue as appropriate Writ for which the Patna High Court CWJC No.9836 of 2018(9) dt.23042024 2/14 petitioner may be found entitled to. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the 1 st respondent filed Reference Petition No. 38 of 2013, before Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council for deciding the dispute of nonpayment of material of electronic weighing machines supplied to buyer/ 1st respondent. Further the 1st respondent filed amendment petition with a prayer (the petitioner issued letter No. 1545 dated 17.02.2024) to take revenge against the 1st respondent by black listing them with the malafide view to stop the payment of Rs. 49,11,921/ to the Respondent No. 01. 4. Further to direct the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 49,11,921/ along with monthly compound interest, against each of the invoice after deduction of 45 days from the date of respective invoices as per the provisions of Section 15 and 16 of MSMED Act, 2006 and further to set aside the impugned letter No. 1545 dated 17.02.2014 as invalid. 5. The petitioner has already preferred a petition before the 2nd Respondent in Petition No. 38 of 2013 regarding its maintainability in the light of clause17 of terms and conditions of the contract i.e. exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Court, Patna to decide any disputes arising Patna High Court CWJC No.9836 of 2018(9) dt.23042024 3/14 between them. 6. The petitioner floated the open tender notice for supplies of weighing machines and thereafter, the 1st Respondent rate was found to be lowest. Thereafter, the Board of Director gave approval for installing weighing machines in 307 godowns in 38 Districts of Bihar. Accordingly, order was placed with the 1st respondent vide order No. 7680 dated 26.09.2011. 7. Certain issues were raised by the 1 st Respondent and after discussions with Managing Director, Bihar State Foods and Civil Supplies Corporation, the said issues were settled and the same was communicated to the 1 st respondent vide letter No. 8368 dated 31.10.2011. Later, the machines were transported and installed in godowns and proof of successful inst
Products(India) Ltd., Circle 1(1), #3, Sector 5, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. PAN: AAACI5038D ITA No.703/Chd/2015 (Assessment Year : 201213) M/s International Fresh Farm Vs. The A.C.I.T., Products(India) Ltd., Circle 1(1), #3, Sector 5, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. PAN: AAACI5038D And ITA No.754/Chd/2015 (Assessment Year : 201213) The A.C.I.T., Vs. M/s International Fresh Farm Circle 1(1), Products(India) Ltd., Chandigarh. #3, Sector 5, Chandigarh. PAN: AAACI5038D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal Respondent by : Smt.Chandra Kant, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 12.07.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 27.07.2017 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : Th e a b o v e a p p e a l s p e r t a i n t o t he s a m e a s s e s s ee w i t h t h e a pp e a l i n I TA N o . 3 1 1 / Ch d / 2 0 1 5 h av i n g b e e n f i l e d by the a s se s se e a g a i n st the order p a ss e d by the L d . CI T( A p p e a l s ) , Chandigarh dated 4 . 1 0. 2 0 1 3 fo r 2 a s s e s s m e nt y e ar 2 0 1 0 1 1 w h i l e t h e a pp e a l s f i l e d i n I TA N o . 7 0 3 / C hd / 2 0 15 a n d i n I TA N o. 7 5 4 / C h d /2 0 1 5 are cross a p p e a l s f i l e d b y t h e a ss e s s e e an d R e v e n ue a g ai n s t th e order of L d. CI T( A p p e a l s ) I , Ch a n d i g a r h d a t ed 3 . 6 . 2 0 15 r e l a t i n g t o a s se ss m e n t y e ar 2 0 1 2 1 3 . 2. I t w as c o mm o n g r o u n d b e t w e en b o t h t he p ar t i e s t h at t h e i s su e i n v o l ve d i n t h e a p p e al s w a s i d e nt i c a l . Th e r e f o re they were heard together and are being disposed off by way o f t h i s c o m m o n o r d e r . F o r t h e s ak e o f c o n v e n i e n ce w e s h a l l be d e a l i ng wi t h the as s es s e e ' s a pp e a l in I TA N o . 3 1 1 / C hd / 2 0 15 . I T A N o . 3 11 / C h d/ 2 0 1 5 ( A s se s s e e 's A p p e a l ): 3. Ground No.1 r ai s e d by the assessee reads as under: "That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding disallowance of deduction U/s 80IB(11) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That the action of the learned CIT(A) is devoid of any merits as non claim of deduction in earlier years due to ignorance cannot be aground for sustaining the disallowance of deduction. The appellant company satisfies all the conditions for claim of deduction U/s 80IB(11) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is prayed that the deduction be allowed . 4. Th e assessee in the a f o r es ai d g r o u nd h as c h a l l e n g ed t h e a c t i o n o f t h e L d. CI T( A p p e a l s ) i n u p h o l d i ng t h e d e n i a l of d ed u c t i o n c l ai m e d u / s 8 0I B ( 1 1) o f t h e I n c o m e Ta x A c t , 1 9 6 1 ( i n s h o r t ' th e A c t' ) . 5. Brief f ac t s r el ev a n t to the i ssu e are t ha t t he assessee had claimed deduction a m ou n t i n g to R s . 2 7 , 6 6 ,0 3 1 / u/s 8 0I B( 1 1 ) of the A ct which a l l o ws d e d u c t i o n o f p r of i t s d e r i ve d f r o m t h e b u s i n e ss o f s e t t i n g u p 3 a n d o p e r a ti n g a c o l d c h a i n f a c i l i t y f o r a
1. Complaint Case No. : 15977/09 2. Name of the complainant : M/s. Muthoot Leasing Finance Ltd., Corporate Office at 1 & 3C, White House, 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. 15977/09 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. 15977/09 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.CW1/3 vide Board Resolution true copy of which is Ex.CW1/2. 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. 644188, 644189, 644190 & 644191 respectively which are Ex.CW1/4 to Ex.CW1/7, all drawn on Central Bank of India, Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi­110021, for an amount of