abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
PETITION 2) It is alleged by the petitioner that she is coowner /landlord of property bearing no. 313/73, G1, Anand Nagar, Inder Lok, Delhi110035(hereinafter referred to as subject premises). It is further stated the the subject premises consists of nine shops and one hall, out of which, eight shops and one hall are on rent. It is stated that the Shop No. 9 measuring about 5.5'X7', though in the power and possession of the petitioner, is situated on the backside of the property and therefore, not visible from the main road. Hence, it is stated that the said shop is being used by Varun Jain (son of the petitioner) as a godown qua his business of sanitary goods, which is run by him from shop at 1982/154, Ground Floor, Main Tota Ram Bazar, Tri Nagar, Delhi110035. It is also stated that the said shop at 1982/154, Ground Floor, Main Tota Ram Bazar, Tri Nagar, Delhi110035 is also coowned by the petitioner. It is further averred that the petitioner is a widow lady and wants to start a footwear shop to support her family and also earn independent income. It is also stated that the petitioner is living at House No. 1244A, Gali No. 86, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi110035, which is a residential area and therefore, not suitable for the bonafide requirement of footwear shop. Further, it is averred that the other son of the petitioner, namely, Tarun Jain is running a factory at Mangol Puri, Industrial Area, Phase1, T2/142, but the said plot is 10 km away from the residence of the petitioner and also not suitable for the purpose of footwear shop as industry/factory is being carried from the same. It is stated that respondent has been inducted as a tenant in respect of Shop No. 2, 313/73, G1, Anand Nagar, Inder Lok, Delhi110035(hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises) and more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan. It is stated that no suitable accommodation is available with the petitioner for the purpose of running the footwear shop and therefore, RC ARC No. 217/2024 Renu Jain Vs. Sarabjeet Singh Page no. 2 of 18 eviction order may be passed with respect to the tenanted premises against the respondent. 3) Along with the eviction petition, petitioner has filed sale deed dated 16.06.1958, translated copy of sale deed, site plan, legal notice dated 10.01.2024, rent receipts and her aadhar card. LEAVE TO DEFEND 4) Upon issuance of summons under the Third Schedule of the DRC Act, the respondent appeared and filed his leave to defend application within the prescribed time period. In the said application, respondent has sought leave to defend and raised various objections. Firstly, it is contended that the need is not bonafide and the purpose of the petition is to fetch higher rent. Secondly, it is contended that the need is not bonafide since the premises let out to the respondent are smaller than that of other tenants. It is stated that out of eight tenants in the subject premises, tenant with respect to Shop no. 4, 7 and 9 are notcovered under the provisions of DRC Act and therefore, petitioner could have easily utilized the said shops for her need, if the need had been genuine. Thirdly, it is c
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Supriya Singh Government Advocate for respondents/State. Shri Achutendra Singh Baghel Advocate for respondent No.3. ORDER By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of recovery Annexure P5 dated 23.12.2021 whereby it has been intimated that an amount of Rs.89,755/ is recoverable from the petitioner towards negative balance in the GPF account. This communication is made by Office of the Accountant General (A&E)II, Madhya Pradesh. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the said recovery has been ordered nine years after retirement of petitioner and it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramnarayan Sharma and others vs. State of M.P. and others , reported in 2017(2) MPLJ 673 that recovery from pensionary dues cannot be made after more than six months from the date of retirement. 3. Upon hearing the rival parties, it is seen that it has been held by Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18092025 18:43:47 2 WP61442022 the Division Bench of this Court by considering in detail the provisions of the M.P. General Provident Fund Rules as well as provisions of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules so also the Fundamental Rules as applicable to the Government servants in Madhya Pradesh that the recovery of negative balance pending in GPF cannot be made from pensionary dues after expiry of six months form the date of retirement. The Division Bench has held as under: "8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is liable to be allowed as the action of the respondents in adjusting the debit balance of the GPF account from the gratuity amount due to the petitioner after more than two years of superannuation is unsupported by any authority of law for the reasons mentioned infra. 8.1. The GPF rules are framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for constitution of General Provident Fund and prescribing procedure for depositing, withdrawal, payment of interest and borrowing qua the said GPF. 8.2. The State has referred to Rule 14(7) of the GPF Rules which is reproduced supra. Rule 14(7) contemplates situation that if withdrawal is made from the fund by the subscriber in excess of the amount to his credit on the date of drawal, the overdrawn amount shall be repaid by the subscriber with interest thereon in lump sum or in default shall be recovered by deduction in one lump sum/in instalments from the emoluments of the subscriber.
Jabalpur, Dated : 21.11.2019. Mr. Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent. This appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the revenue against the orderdated 15.12.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur in ITA Nos.175 & 177/JAB/2004, has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether COD's approval is mandatory in cases where assessee is not PSU but DDOs who are disbursing the payments to the employees and contractors are forced to deduct tax as per provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act." Counsel for the parties submitted that a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act was filed before the Tribunal, where the order impugned against which substantial question of law has been framed has been recalled by the Tribunal. In view of the above, it was not disputed that the present appeal has been rendered infructuous. A prayer was made that it may be disposed of as such. Ordered accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ( VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA ) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Digitally signed Aks/ by ANIL KUMAR S Date: 2019.11.25 15:55:26 +05'30'
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 23:59:08 ::: 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 23:59:08 ::: 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.50,797/
1. Complaint Case No. : 3819/10 2. Name of the complainant : M/s. MCF Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Through its Diretor Shri S.P. Chawla, S/o Shri B.S. Chawla, having its Office At: B­204, Vikas Tower, Community Centre, Vikas Puri, New Delhi­110 018 3. Name of the accused and his : Shri Narain Singh parentage and residence S/o Shri Bhagwan Das R/o WZ­6A, Keshopur Village, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 4. Offence complained of or proved: U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 2 CC No. 3819/10 6. Final Order : Accused is convicted 7. Date of Order : 06.03.2012 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 1. The brief facts of the case are that Shri B.S Chawla is one of the Director of the complainant company and has been authorized to file the present complaint against the accused for dishonour of cheque vide Resolution dated 21.12.1989. Shri S.P. Chawla was the AR in the present complaint and has tendered his pre summoning evidence vide order dated 01.05.2010. 2. It is stated in the complaint that the accused availed a personal loan of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the complainant and executed documents to this effect and agreed to return the same after some time and thereafter at the time of full and final settlement of dues pending against him handed over to the complainant a cheque bearing No. 698350 dated 09.12.2009 for Rs.1,09,000/­ drawn on State Bank of India, A­5, WZ­2/1A, Sahibpura, Keshopur, New Delhi­110018 which is Ex.CW1/8 It is further stated that the complainant company accepted the aforesaid cheque towards the full and final settlement of dues pending against the accused and that when the aforesaid cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide returning memo dated 10.12.2009 which is Ex.CW1/9. 3. The complainant company further averred in its complaint that a legal demand notice which is Ex. CW1/10 dated 24.12.2009 was sent by the 3 CC No. 3819/10 complainant company through its lawyer by registered AD and UPC Post receipts dated 24.12.2009 which is Ex.CW1/11 and Ex.CW1/12 respectively and the AD Card and returned envelop are Ex.CW1/13 to Ex.CW1/14 respectively and that the accused failed to make the payment within the statutory period of 15 days and hence this criminal complaint was filed by the complainant. 4. Upon service of summons, the accused put his appearance for the first time before the Court on 02.02.2011 and was granted court bail on the same date. Notice was framed against the accused on 21.03.2011 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. EVIDENCE 5. To support its case, the complainant bank examined one witness­ Mr. S.P. Chawla AR of the Complainant bank as CW1 on 14.09.2011 & 13.10.2011. 6. On 14.09.2011, CW1 tendered his evidence by adopting pre­ summoning evidence tendered by himself and relied upon the documents Ex./CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/14. In his cross­examination, CW1 has stated that the loan agreement was executed b
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: r Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1State. Ms. Madhurika Sekhon, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Caveat Petition No.322 of 2024 Allowed and discharged. The caveat petition stands disposed of. CWP No.9290 of 2024 The petitioner has claimed following substantive reliefs in this writ petition: 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes ::: Downloaded on 04/09/2024 20:32:25 :::CIS 2 "i. Issue a writ of certiorari thereby to call for the records and rejected the impugned orders dated 20.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 and the awards dated 01.07.2024 given by Ld. Arbitrator (reference No.197/2023 and reference No.198 of 2023). ii. Declare that the claim filed by the respondent No.3 is . nonmaintainable and devoid of merits. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the relevant authorities to ensure compliance with government guidelines and proper documentation in any claims related to MSME disputes." 2. Petitioner is a proprietorship firm, which has suffered two separate arbitration awards, both passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator on 01.07.2024 in two separate reference numbers, i.e. Reference No.197/2023 (53412), dated 20.12.2023 and Reference No.198/2023 (53411), dated 20.12.2023, both received from Himachal Pradesh Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise Facilitation Council. In the first reference, learned Sole Arbitrator has allowed the claim of respondent No.3 and awarded principal amount of Rs.40,30,814/ & interest thereon Rs.18,76,262/, i.e. total amounting to Rs.59,07,076/ upto 31.08.2023. Operative part of the award reads as under: "The claim of the petitioner is admitted and an award for the Principal amount of Rs.40,30,814 and interest there on Rs.18,76,262/ i.e. the total net amount of Rs 59,07,076/ up to 31.08.2023 is passed against the buyer and in favour of claimant to be paid within 30 days from the date of this award. The respondent shall also be liable to pay to the petitioner interest from the date of filing the present reference up to the date of passing the award and future interest from the date of passing the award till the payment is ::: Downloaded on 04/09/2024 20:32:25 :::CIS 3 made as per interest rate fixed under section 16 of the MSMED Act 2006.The petitioner is further entitled to get reimbursed arbitrator's fees of Rs 50,000/ and litigation expenses and other miscellaneous expenses such as postal & stationary charges, clerical expenses, travelling expenses etc. to the e
Yash Arora Proprietor M/s Siddhi Vinayak Traders 95/147 Gupta Colony, Transport Nagar Meerut, Uttar Pradesh 2500002 ..... Defendant Date of institution : 28.02.2022 Date of arguments : 22.04.2024 Date of judgment : 06.05.2024 JUDGMENT 1. This is a 'commercial suit' for recovery of Rs. 6,10,344.00/ (Six Lakh Ten Thousand Three Hundred FortyFour), with interest sought @ 24% per annum. 2. The dispute between the parties is a 'commercial dispute' within the definition of Sec. 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA). Prelitigation mediation between the parties remained unsuccessful vide Judgment dated 06.05.2024; CS (COMM) 179/2022; CNR No. DLWT010019542022; Diamond Modular Private Limited Vs. Yash Arora Page 1 of 15 2 a nonstarter report dated 17.12.2021 issued by the concerned District Legal Services Authority. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff supplied electrical switches, LED lights/panels and other electrical products to the defendant under six invoices between 05.12.2019 to 26.12.2019 for a total amount of Rs. 6,10,344.00/. The details of the invoices are as follows : S.NO. DATE INVOICE NO. AMOUNT (Rs.) 1. 05/12/2019 D/2814Y201920 27,259.00 2. 12/12/2019 D/2880Y201920 2,57,005.00 3. 16/12/2019 D/2920Y201920 50,386.00 4. 17/12/2019 D/2931Y201920 1,00,897.00 5. 25/12/2019 D/3017Y201920 12,122.00 6. 26/12/2019 D/3023Y201920 1,62,675.00 TOTAL : 6,10,344.00 3.1. As per plaintiff, the entire amount of the invoices is due from the defendant. Initially, plaintiff filed an application before Samadhan, Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSME Council), but when no action was taken by the MSME Council, the application was withdrawn in August 2021. Legal notice sent to the defendant was replied to by the defendant in which the defendant denied the liability claiming that the goods supplied by the plaintiff were under warranty period of two years from the date of supply and therefore not only the notice was premature, but also certain goods were returned by the customers of the defendant to the defendant, within the warranty period, which the plaintiff failed to replace, therefore the defendant had no liability. Judgment dated 06.05.2024; CS (COMM) 179/2022; CNR No. DLWT010019542022; Diamond Modular Private Limited Vs. Yash Arora Page 2 of 15 3 4. The suit is being contested by the defendant stating that though the defendant had been purchasing goods from the plaintiff since 2019, those goods were carrying a warranty period of two years and the plaintiff was bound to replace the goods whenever the defendant used to get replacement orders from his customers and the defendant used to
M/s. Surya Poly Bags No.58, Periyapanicherry Village, Gerugambakkam, Chennai600 012. ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying challenging the arbitral award dated 19.04.2022 in MSEFC / CR / 428/ 2020 on the file of Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sivaraman For Respondent : No appearance. 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.2480 of 2022 ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner as against the order passed by the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region in MSEFC / CR / 428/ 2020 dated 19.04.2022, wherein the respondent herein filed a petition before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and the same was allowed by directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,95,210/ along with compound interest with monthly rests, at three times the bank rate, notified by the Reserve Bank of India, as stipulated in Section 15 and 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006, from the appointed due dates pertaining to 4 Nos of invoices dated 17.06.2016 to 20.06.2016. As against the said order, the present Revision petition has been filed by the respondent therein/M/s.Kothari (Madras) International Ltd. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondent herein has filed a petition before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai alleging that the respondent is a Member of the Council covered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.2480 of 2022 and the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.1,95,210/ in respect of business transactions. In fact, the respondent herein was registered as a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Unit on 12.02.2020. The transactions mentioned in the claim were between the period from 17.06.2016 to 20.06.2016. Therefore, the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Therefore, the order passed by the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon judgment in Vaishno Enterprises vs. Hamilton Medical AG, 2022 reported in SCC Online SC 355, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “15. It is not in dispute that the contract / agreement between the appellant and the respondent has been executed on 24.08.2020. Therefore, the laws of India applicable at the time of Contract / agreement shall be applicable and therefore the parties shall be governed by
Orissa High Court M/S. Bridge And Roof Company (India) vs State Of Orissa & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 9 January, 2026 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15Jan2026 19:31:53 W.P.(C) No.31365 of 2025 (In the matters of a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). M/s. Bridge and Roof Company (India) .... Petitioner(s) Ltd., Kolkata versus State of Orissa & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. H. Gupta, Adv. versus For Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Rajdeep Pradhan, ASC Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath, Adv. On behalf of Mr. Sidharth Shankar Padhy, Adv. DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATES OF HEARING: 16.12.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09.01.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred seeking setting aside of order dated 30.8.2025, passed by the Directorate of Industries, Cuttack in MSEFC Case No. 68 of 2021. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The Petitioner has filed the present Petition to correct a jurisdictional error committed by the MSEF Council, vide its order Page 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15Jan2026 19:31:53 dated 30.8.2025 and has challenged the impugned order on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction by the Council. (ii) The petitioner, M/s Bridge and Roof Company (India) Limited, is a Government of India undertaking incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its registered office at Kolkata. The petitioner was engaged as the principal contractor for execution of works relating to a power plant project of M/s Bhushan Energy Limited at Dhenkanal, Odisha. In furtherance of the said project, the petitioner issued a work order dated 11.6.2010 in favour of M/s Adarsh Corporation Private Limited, the predecessorininterest of Opposite Party No. 3, for execution of structural steel works at the project site. (iii) The work order dated 11.6.2010 pertained to "Fabrication, Erection and Painting of Structural Steel Work" in connection with the power plant area. The contract is allegedly composite in nature, involving labour, material, design coordination, erection, and site execution. The contract value at the inception stood at approximately Rs. 14.14 crores, subject to revisions. The terms of the work order incorporated the Notice Inviting Tender and Record Notes of Discussion as integral parts of the contractual framework. (iv) Subsequently, on 19.9.2012, a formal amendment to the work order was issued, recording the change in the name of the contractor from M/s Adarsh Corporation Private Limited to M/s Adarsh Noble Corporation Limited. This amendment did not alter the Page 2