abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
1. M/s RT Packaging Ltd., Having its office at Plot No.7374, PhaseIII, Industrial Area, Dharuhera, Rewari, Haryana123106 Email Id [email protected] 2. Mr. Yogesh Kapoor (Managing Director) Having its office at Plot No.7374, PhaseIII, Industrial Area, Dharuhera, Rewari, Haryana123106 Email Id [email protected] CS (COMM) No.494/2023 M/s Kiran Roadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s RT Packaging Ltd. & Ors Pg. No.1 of 20 Digitally signed ILLA by ILLA RAWAT Date: RAWAT 2024.11.11 16:49:00 +0530 3. Mr. Nilesh Bahari (Director) Having its office at Plot No.7374, PhaseIII, Industrial Area, Dharuhera, Rewari, Haryana123106 Email Id [email protected] 4. Mr. Rajiv Kapur, (Director) Having its office at Plot No.7374, PhaseIII, Industrial Area, Dharuhera, Rewari, Haryana123106 Email Id [email protected] ...Defendants Date of Institution : 20.03.2023 Judgment reserved on : 07.10.2024 Judgment passed on : 11.11.2024 COMMERCIAL SUIT FOR RECOVERY JUDGMENT 1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the commercial suit for recovery of Rs.7,63,944/ filed by plaintiff against the defendants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is registered with Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise since 19.01.2022. Its registered office is at 7483, Bansal Apartment, Mill Marg, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi 110055. The plaintiff company is engaged in the business of providing logistics and transportation services. The present suit CS (COMM) No.494/2023 M/s Kiran Roadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s RT Packaging Ltd. & Ors Pg. No.2 of 20 Digitally signed ILLA by ILLA RAWAT Date: RAWAT 2024.11.11 16:49:01 +0530 has been instituted through Sh.Dinesh Kumar Singh, Legal & Administration Manager of the plaintiff company, who has been duly authorized vide Board Resolution dated 09.03.2023, who is stated to be competent to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the present suit. 3. It is averred in the plaint that defendant no.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the defendants no.2 to 4 are its director. The defendant no.1/company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and providing the services of Metallic Pipe, PVC Plastic Pipe and Nonmetallic Pipe and has its registered office at Plot No.7374, PhaseIII, Industrial Area, Dharuhera, Rewari, Haryana123103, India. 4. It is further averred in the plaint that in the year 2015, the defendants no.2 to 4, on behalf of defendant no.1, approached the plaintiff company with intent to engage the plaintiff for transportation/logistic services for Metallic Pipe, PVC Plastic Pipe and Nonmetallic Pipe from manufacturing units to various sites all over India. The plaintiff agreed to the proposal of defendants and accordingly jobs were assigned by the defendants to the plaintiff. It is further averred that the defendants provided the first consignment dated 11.09.2015 to the plaintiff for delivery of several goods and material and the plaintiff had raised an invoice bearing no.70098 for a sum of Rs.12,050/ against this delivery to the defendants.
Bombay High Court Hinjewadi vs M/S Sgs India on 15 September, 2014 *1* cexa.214.13.group kps ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.214 OF 2013 ALONG WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NOS.115/2013, 257/2013, 258/2013, 222/2013, 221/2013, 220/2013, 217/2013, 251/2013, 202/2013, 204/2013, 206/2013, 118/2013, 117/2013, 116/2013 and 256/2013. Tech Mahindra Limited ] having its office at Plot No. 1 ] Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park ] Hinjewadi, Phase III ] Pune 411057. ig ] ..APPELLANTS/ASSESSEE VERUS The Commissioner of Central Excise, ] Pune III, ] Having his office at ] ICE House, 41A, ] Sasson Road, Opp. Wadia College ] Pune 411001. ] ..RESPONDENT/REVENUE ........... Mr.V.Sridharan, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Prakash Shah, Mr.Sandeep Sachdeva and Mr.Jas Sanghavi i/by PDS Legal, for the Appellants/ Assessee. Mr.Vijay Kantharia with Mr.J.B.Mishra, for the Respondent/ Revenue. ........... AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. Reserved on : 14th July, 2014 Pronounced on : 15th September, 2014. ::: Downloaded on 24/09/2014 23:16:13 ::: *2* cexa.214.13.group JUDGMENT (Per S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.): 1 Since both sides agree that these Appeals involve common questions, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2 For properly appreciating the arguments of the parties, the facts in Central Excise Appeal No.214/ 2013 are referred to. This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "CESTAT") dated 07.03.2013 in which it has been held that for the period upto 27.02.2010 the Appellants before us are not eligible for refund. 3 The Appeal is ADMITTED on the following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was correct in holding that onsite work undertaken at customer's premises of the Appellants does not fulfil the requirement of 'Service Provided from India' contained in first leg of Rule 3(2)(a) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 (b) Whether the CESTAT erred in not considering the alternative plea of the Appellants, that in the event of first leg of Rule 3(2)(a) of Export of Service Rules, 2005 is held not satisfied, (i.e. Service provided from India), then Appellants are not liable to pay service tax under Section 66A on the amount charged by subsidiaries to Appellants for onsite work and hence is liable to be refunded treating the claim already made under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as claim for refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994, read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994? (c) Whether the CESTAT erred in not accepting the alternate plea of the Appellants, that in the event it is
1.Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce st 1 Floor, SIDCO Corporate Building, ThiruViKa Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. 2.Macpro Automation Private Limited No.382, P.K.M.Cross Street, Padasalai Street, Mel Ayambakkam, Chennai – 600 095. ... Respondents 1 & 2 in both CRPs' 1/25 http://www.judis.nic.in CRP (NPD) NOS.500 TO 505 OF 2019 PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the proceedings in MSEFC/CR/43/2018, MSEFC/CR/39/2018, MSEFC/CR/42/2018, MSEFC/CR/40/2018, MSEFC/CR/41/2018, MSEFC/CR/37/2018 respectively, on the file of the MSME Council, under the MSMED Act, 2006. For Petitioner : Ms.Preeti Mohan (in all CRPs') For Respondent2 : Mr.V.Srikanth (in all CRPs') COMMON ORDER Challenging the summons issued by the first respondent for hearing dated 20.11.2018 as one of without jurisdiction, the above Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred. 2. The petitioner is a buyer in terms of Section 2(d) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter called “the Act”). The second respondent supplied goods to the petitioner, as such it falls within the definition “Supplier” under Section 2(n) of the Act. The crucial dispute involved in this case is as to whether the second respondent falls within the definition of Section 2(n) and about maintainability, scope and jurisdiction of reference before the Council constituted as per Section 20 2/25 http://www.judis.nic.in CRP (NPD) NOS.500 TO 505 OF 2019 of the Act. 3.According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petition filed by the second respondent before the first respondent "Council" is not maintainable for the reason that the second respondent was not a registered entrepreneur as per the Act on the date of agreement between them and is bound by the conditions of the contract entered between the parties. The Act will apply only in respect of the agreements entered between the parties after the registration and the Council will have jurisdiction only for the contracts entered between the parties. As such, the second respondent cannot be construed as a "Supplier". Therefore, the Council has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Apart from that, the claim is barred by limitation, which issue can be dec
MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL, GUJARAT Appearance: MR MIHIR JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS MINOO A SHAH(774) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4 MR SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR ARJUN R SHETH(7589) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 Date : 06/11/2020 COMMON ORAL ORDER Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocate Ms.Minoo Shah for the petitioners and learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr.Arjun Sheth for respondent Nos.3 and 4 in each of the three petitions. 2. The respondent company herein approached respondent No.1Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for recovery of amount in respect of delayed payment alleged to be due from the petitioner pursuant to disputes arising under the contracts between the parties. Under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, (MSMED Act)the matter was dealt with by respondent No.1 Council. It appears that conciliation proceedings were sought to be undertaken which however failed. The respondentsclaimants requested by letter dated 21st September, 2020 that the conciliation proceeding under Section 18(2) of the Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 04:01:22 IST 2020 C/SCA/14249/2020 ORDER Act has failed and then requested the Council to start arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the said MSMRD Act, 2006. 2.1 On the other hand, the case of the petitioner company has been that the respective contracts entered into between the parties, contain an arbitration clause which stands incorporated as part of agreed terms of the contract. The petitioner company has activated itself to invoke the arbitration clause in the contract to commence the private arbitration. The arbitration clause is invoked by petitioner on 10th August, 2020. 3. On 06th October, 2020, the Facilitation Council was requested by the petitioner company that since it has already invoked the arbitration clause and taken out proceedings for appointment of arbitrator, second arbitration under Section 18(3), MSMED Act, 2006, could not be initiated. 3.1 The Facilitation Council passed order dated 08th October, 2020 rejecting the request of the petitioner company, deciding to proceed under Section 18(3) of the Act of 2006. It is this order which is impugned in the respective petitions. 4. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioners inter alia that the arbitration clause between the parties agreed upon and incorporated in the contract shall not lose its efficacy in law notwithstanding the arbitration sought for by the Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 04:01:22 IST 2020 C/SCA/14249/2020 ORDER respondent company under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act and that the private arbitration
Income Tax Officer (OSD), Company Circle V (2), 4th Floor, Main Building, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent/Appellant in both TCAs. Prayer in Tax Case (Appeal) No.1370 of 2009: Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'B' dated 03.07.2009 in I.T.A.No.2156/MDS/2007. Prayer in Tax Case (Appeal) No.1371 of 2009: Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'B' dated 03.07.2009 in I.T.A.No.2146/MDS/2007. 1/43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 02:43:57 pm ) T.C.A.Nos.1370 and 1371 of 2009 For Appellant : Mr.N.V.Balaji (in both) For Respondent : Mr.Ravikumar (in both) Senior Standing Counsel COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of this Court was delivered by C.SARAVANAN, J.) By this Common Order, both these Tax Case Appeals are being disposed of. 2. These Tax Case Appeals were admitted by this Court on 14.12.2009. At the time of admission, the following Questions of Law were framed as Substantial Questions of Law by this Court for being answered: “(i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant concerning the computation of deduction under Section 10A and 80HHE? (ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the exclusion of expenditure incurred in foreign currency in relation to onsite software development from the purview of export turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 10A and 80HHE of the Income Tax Act? (iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not noting the distinction between 'manufacture of computer software' and the provision of 'technical services'? (iv)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in remitting back to the Assessing Officer without giving its finding on the issue relating to the exclusion of the component of unrealized sale proceeds both 2/43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 02:43:57 pm ) T.C.A.Nos.1370 and 1371 of 2009 from export turnover and
M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., Administrative Building, Chennai Metro Rail Depot, Poonamallee High Road, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/73 O.S.A.(CAD).Nos.147 of 2021, 85 and 79 of 2022 and 148 of 2021 Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107. ... Respondent In O.SA.(CAD).No.85 of 2022 : Chennai Metro Rail Limited Administrative Building Chennai Metro Rail Depot Poonamalle High Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107. ... Appellant Versus The Joint Venture M/s. Transtonnelstroy – AFCONS JV, represented by Afcons Infrastructure Limited, and comprising: 1. Transtonnelstroy Limited, 4/1 Luganskaya Str, Moscow, 115516, Russia. 2. Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Afcons House, 16, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Azad Nagar (P.O.) Post box no.11978, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053. ... Respondents In O.SA.CAD).No.79 of 2022 : Chennai Metro Rail Limited Administrative Building Chennai Metro Rail Depot Poonamalle High Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107. ... Appellant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/73 O.S.A.(CAD).Nos.147 of 2021, 85 and 79 of 2022 and 148 of 2021 Versus The Joint Venture M/s. Transtonnelstroy – AFCONS JV, represented by Afcons Infrastructure Limited, and comprising: 1. Transtonnelstroy Limited, 4/1 Luganskaya Str, Moscow, 115516, Russia. 2. Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Afcons House, 16, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Azad Nagar (P.O.) Post box no.11978, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053. ... Respondents In O.SA.CAD).No.148 of 2021 : M/s. Transtonnelstroy – Afcons (JV) Comprising of : M/s.Transtonnelstroy Ltd., 4/1, Lunganskaya Street,
which has had an occasion to inter alia consider the arguments of journalists that they had a fundamental right to carry on their occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; that they also had a right to attend the proceedings in court under Article 19(1)(d); and that their right 1 (1966) 3 SCR 744 3 to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) included their right to publish a faithful report of the proceedings which they had witnessed and heard in Court as journalists. The Court whilst considering the said argument went on to emphasise about the efficacy of open trials for upholding the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Courts and for enhancement of public confidence and support. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant extract from the said decision propounding about the efficacy of hearing of cases in open courts, in the following words: “20….. It is wellsettled that in general, all cases brought before the Courts, whether civil, criminal, or others, must be heard in open Court. Public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries, and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity, and impartiality of the administration of justice. Public confidence in the administration of justice is of such great significance that there can be no two opinions on the broad proposition that in discharging their functions as judicial Tribunals, courts must generally hear causes in open and must
Orissa High Court O.A.T. Bar Association vs Union Of India And Others .... Opposite ... on 7 June, 2021 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Nos.13789, 16422, 24577, 5736, 6152 of 2019 and 1626 of 2020 (Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) In W.P.(C) No.13789 of 2019 O.A.T. Bar Association, Cuttack, represented by its Secretary Sri Prakash .... Petitioner Kumar Rout Mr. Budhadeb Routray, Senior Advocate Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate Mr. S.K. Pattanaik, Senior Advocate Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocate versus Union of India and Others .... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, Assistant Solicitor General For Opposite Party No.1 Mr. A.K. Parija, Advocate General along with Mr. M.S. Sahoo, Additional Government Advocate For the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 (State) Mr. Ravi Iyer, Advocate For the Intervener In W.P.(C) No.16422 of 2019 Jadunath Dash .... Petitioner Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocate versus State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, Assistant Solicitor General For Opposite Party No.2 Mr. A.K. Parija, Advocate General along with Mr. M.S. Sahoo, Additional Government Advocate For Opposite Party (State) W.P.(C) No.13789 of 2019 and connected matters Page 1 of 90 In W.P.(C) No.24577 of 2019 The Odisha Retired Police Officers' .... Petitioner Welfare Association Mr. Santosh Kumar Pattanaik Senior Advocate versus Union of India and Others .... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, Assistant Solicitor General For Opposite Party No.1 Mr. A.K. Parija, Advocate General along with Mr. M.S. Sahoo, Additional Government Advocate For Opposite Party (State) In W.P.(C) No.5736 of 2019 Sri Ras Bihari Mohapatra .... Petitioner InPerson versus Union of India and Others .... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, Assistant Solicitor General For Opposite Party No.1 Mr. A.K. Parija, Advocate General along with Mr. M.S. Sahoo, Additional Government Advocate For Opposite Party (State) In W.P.(C) No.6152 of 2019 O.S.A.T. Bar Association, Bhubaneswar, represented by its .... Petitioner Secretary Sri Pramoda Kumar Dash Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocate versus Secretary to Government of India and .... Opposite Parties Others Mr. P.K. Parhi, Assistant Solicitor General For Opposite Party No.1 Mr. A.K. Parija, Advocate General along with Mr. M.S. Sahoo, Additional Government Advocate For Opposite Party (State) W.P.(C) No.13789 of 2019 and connected matters Page 2 of 90 In W.P.(C) No.1626 of 2020 Sri Saroj Kumar Sahoo and Others .... Petitioners Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocate versus Union of India and Others .... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, Assistant Solicitor General For Opposite Party No.1 Mr. A.K. Parija, Advocate General along with Mr. M.S. Sahoo, Additional Government Advocate For Opposite Party (State) THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Delhi High Court M/S Verve Human Care Laboratories vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 September, 2022 * Date of decision: 02nd SEPTEMBER, 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: + W.P.(C) 3270/2022 & CM APPL. 9516/2022 M/S VERVE HUMAN CARE LABORATORIES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Goyal and Ms. Riya Gulati, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Ms. Shreya Jetly, Advocate for R1 and R2. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Mr. Manek Singh and Mr. Aman Sahani, Advocates for Respondent/CMSS. + W.P.(C) 3357/2022 & CM APPLs. 9810/2022, 9811/2022, 10103/2022 M/S MAAN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Jain, Mr. Pradeep K. B., Ms. Jaspreet Aulakh and Mr. Tanpreet Gulati, Advocates. versus CENTRAL MEDICAL SERVICES SOCIETY (CMSS) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Mr. Manek Singh and Mr. Aman Sahani, Advocates for Respondent/CMSS. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Waize Ali Noor and Mr. Madhav Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA W.P.(C) 3270/2022 etc. Page 1 of 31 Signing Date:03.09.2022 16:12:01 Bajaj, Advocates for R2/UOI. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD JUDGMENT 1. The instant writ petitions have been filed primarily seeking, inter alia, the quashing of Tender No. CMSS/PROC/202122/NACO/034 published on 15.02.2022 and floated by the Respondent Central Medical Services Society (hereinafter referred to as „CMSS‟), an autonomous society of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and for the finalization of Tender No. CMSS/PROC/202122/NACO/011 dated 27.09.2021 in favour of the Petitioners herein. The said tenders pertain to the procurement of Buprenorphine 2 mg and 0.4 mg. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petitions are as under: a) It is stated that on 14.08.2020, CMSS floated Tender No. CMSS/PROC/202022/NACO/009 (hereinafter referred to as "Tender No.1") for procurement of Benzathine Penicillin, Lopinavir 100 mg + Ritonavir 25 mg for year 2020 to 2022 and Buprenorphine 2 mg (20202021). Tender No.1 enumerated the following eligibility criteria: "(g) Tenderer should have supplied 5