abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Delhi District Court M/S Mohan Lal Gupta vs The General Manager Of Ordnance Factory on 31 May, 2022 IN THE COURT OF SH GURVINDER PAL SINGH, DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)02, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI OMP (Comm.) No. 133/2021 M/s Mohan Lal Gupta Through its Authorized Representative Sh. Raman Gupta D89, Shastri Nagar, Meerut City, U.P.250004 Email : [email protected] ...Petitioner versus The General Manager of Ordnance Factory Muradnagar, Ghaziabad201206 (U.P.) E mail : [email protected] ...Respondent Date of Institution : 16/12/2021 Arguments concluded on : 12/05/2022 Decided on : 31/05/2022 Appearances : Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ld. Counsel for petitioner. Ms. Kalpana, Ld. Counsel for respondent. JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner had filed the present petition under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred as The Act) for partly setting aside the impugned arbitral award dated 19/11/2021 passed by Sh. B. Krishnamoorthy, Ld. Sole Arbitrator in Case No. 1(1)/Arbitrator/OFM/OFBNDO/2020 titled 'M/s Mohan Lal Gupta vs. The General Manager Ordnance Factory' with respect to claim nos. 1 (partly), 2,3,4,6,7,8,9 and also for granting and allowing the claim nos. 1 (partly), 2,3,4,6,7,8,9 of petitioner. OMP (Comm.) No. 133/2021 M/s Mohan Lal Gupta vs The General Manager of Ordnance Factory Page 1 of 35 2. Following were the 9 claims of petitioner/claimant before Ld. Sole Arbitrator: Sl. No. Claim No. Description 1. Claim No. 1 Rs. 12,14,355/ of withheld amount of work done under contract. 2. Claim No. 2 Rs. 2,15,000/ for work against rectification of illegal defects 3. Claim No. 3 Rs. 5,08,363/ for payment for extra work. 4. Claim No. 4 Rs. 70,000/ in the form of FDR towards performance guarantee 5. Claim No. 5 Rs. 1,67,283/ reserved amount at the time of part payment of final bill 6. Claim No. 6 Rs. 6,22,958/ for blockage of payment of final bill 7. Claim No. 7 Rs. 32,00,000/ of loss & profit of the firm 8. Claim No. 8 For interest @ 24% P.A. 9. Claim No. 9 Rs. 3,00,000/ for cost of reference. 3. Following is the award of Ld. Sole Arbitrator with respect to above said claims of petitioner/claimant: Sr. Claim of Award No. Claimant 1 Withheld A portioned amount for 50 sq.m amount of work can be deducted. Rest amount of done under Rs. 1175499.80 should be contract: Rs. released to the contractor. 1214355.00 Amount of Rs.38,855.00 shall be released if the contractor repairs the damaged portion of 50 sqm of road otherwise this amount should be forfeited. 2 For work against Not admitted illegal defects: Rs. 215000.00 3 For payment for Not admitted extra work: Rs. OMP (Comm.) No. 133/2021 M/s Mohan Lal Gupta vs The General Manager of Ordnance Factory Page 2 of 35 5,08363/ 4 In the form of Repair of defect for
1. Probability Sports (India) Pvt. Ltd., A private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at Unit No1603, 16th Floor, Lodha Supremus, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 2. Mumbai Cricket Association, A society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, and having its office at Cricket Centre, Wankhede Stadium, "D" Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. 3. M/s. Royal Edge Sports and Entertainment Address at:214, Stock Exchange Towers, PMB 1 ::: Uploaded on 07/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on 07/05/2025 22:17:12 ::: arappl.129672025.odt Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai400001. ... Respondents **** Mr. Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Mr. Ujjawal Anand Sharma, Mr. Kunal Kanungo, Mr. Vikramjit Garewal, Mr. Prashant Sivarajan, Mr. Jai Zaveri, Mr. Tushar Saigal, Zainab Burmawala i/b. Atishay Jain, for the appellant. Mr. Amrut Joshi a/w Devesh Juvekar, Anjali Dhoot, Mithilesh Chalke, Yazad Udwadia i/b. Rajani Associates, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Mr. Pranav Nair, Mr. S. B. Pawar, Ms. Swati Sawant, Harsh Joshi i/b. S. K. Legal Asso., for respondent No.2. Mr. Prakhar Tandon i/b. Agam H. Maloo, for respondent No.3. **** CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : 7th MAY, 2025 JUDGMENT (PER M.S.KARNIK, J.) : 1. The appellant Jupicos Entertainment Private Limited ("Jupicos" for short) challenges the order dated 16 th April 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in arbitration petition filed by Jupicos under the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the said Act" for short). The said arbitration petition was filed in respect of disputes and differences that arose between Jupicos and the respondent No.2 Mumbai Cricket Association ("MCA" for PMB 2 ::: Uploaded on 07/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on 07/05/2025 22:17:12 ::: arappl.129672025.odt short) concerning an agreement dated 9 th March 2018 ("participation agreement") rea
5. He further relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Harbanslal Sahnia and another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.& others, 2003 2 SCC 107 and Mrs. Sanjana M. Wig Vs. Hindustan Petro Corporation Ltd. 2005 (6) Supreme 328 as well as this Court in the case of M/s ECI SPIC, SMO MCMI (JV) Vs. Central Organization for Railway Electrification Allahabad and another, 2017 0 Supreme (All) 2374 and submitted that there was efficacious alternative remedy of arbitration / civil jurisdiction and writ petition should not be entertained in such matters. 6. Rebutting the said submission leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is sixth round of litigation, but the objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition was never raised earlier. He further submits that the Division Bench as well as the Single Bench of this Court on various occasions, on almost identical set of facts, not only maintained the writ petition, but also directed for resuming the supply of HSD supply to the petitioners therein. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgements in M/s Kamalkant Automobiles & Another Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Others [2019 (3) ADJ 307 (DB)], M/s Chaudhary Filling Point, Kazipur & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2019 (3) ADJ 345 (DB) (LB)] as well as Writ C No. 67004 of 2014 (M/s Sainik Krishak Sewa Kendra vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another) which was disposed of by this Court on 6.9.2016 after considering various judgements of the Apex Court and submits that the writ petition is maintainable. 7. He further submitted that the present writ petition is the 6th round of litigation and the present writ petition has been filed against the order passed in appeal in terms of clause 8.9 of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines. Therefore, he prays for entertaining the writ petition. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the various judgements placed before this Court, it would be relevant to discuss the judgements, referred to above. 9. It is a matter of fact in the case in hand this is sixth round of litigation and the present writ petition is being filed with regard to the order passed in appeal as per clause 8. 9 of Marketing Discipline Guidelines. 10. Now, the Court first deals with the individual judgements relied upon by the counsel for the respondents. 11. So far as the law laid down by this Court in the case of M/s ECI SPICSMOMCMI (JV) (Supra) is concerned, the Court after considering the material on record in that case has dismissed the petition on the ground of availability of arbitration clause and same view has also been express by the Apex Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia (supra). 12. Further in the case of Mrs. Sanjana M. Wig(supra), the parties themselves had appeared before the Arbitrator and se
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. Resolution Professional invited c
1. M/s.S.J.Equipments, No.I, Shakthi Flats, No.65, Kamaraj Salai, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 092. 2. Mr.Harmander Singh, I.A.S., Chairman, Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai. 3. Mr.S.Ashok, Jt. Secretary, TANSTIA, Chennai, Member, MSEF Council, Chennai Region. 4. Mr.D.Gandhikumar, Vice President, FISMI, Member, MSEF Council, Chennai Region. 5. Mr.M.Periyasamy, Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank/Lead Bank Chennai, Member, MSEF Council, Chennai Region. Page 1 / 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.506 of 2013 6. Mr.S.Muralidharan, Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation, Chennai, Member, MSEF Council, Chennai Region. . . . Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award of the second respondent dated 04.12.2012 made in relation to disputes arising out of agreement No.J/51, dated 15.03.2011. For petitioner : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar For respondents : Mr.A.Sri Sarann – R1 partyinperson ORDER Challenging the award passed by the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, dated 04.12.2012, the present Original Petition has been filed. 2. The respondent is a Micro Small Enterprises engaged in turnkey operations for chlorination of drinking water and they had entered into an agreement vide J/51, dated 15.03.20211 for providing purified drinking water to the stations through water treatment system in Palakkad division. They started work on the basis of Letter of Acceptance. The respondent/ petitioner has to make Page 2 / 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.506 of 2013 payment immediately after the supply of goods and the respondent has to pay Rs.10,96,250/ including interest towards the supply made by the petitioner/respondent herein. Despite request made by the applicant, namely the respondent herein, the petitioner has not taken any action to appoint an arbitrator. Therefore, the matter has been referred to the Council. 3. It is the case of the respondent that as per the contract, the respondent ought to have approached the General Manager, Railways for appointment of an arbitrator as per Clause 6 of General Conditions of the Contract. The petitioner has taken up the work and installed PVC chemical tanks instead of HMHDPE chemical tanks. Despite request made by the railways, the claimant has not signed the measurement for the work done at CLT, CAN and MAQ and hence, any payments to the above works cannot be made due to the failure of the petitioner to provide HMHDPE chemical tank as stipulated in the agreement. 4. Rejoinder has also been filed by the claimant. Page 3 / 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.506 of 2013 5. The council, following the procedures under MSMED Act and considering the rival submissions
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Mr. Mohammed Ameer, Udupi on 25 August, 2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2254 to 2257/Bang/2019 Assessment years : 2011 12 & 2013 14 to 2015 16 Shri. Subhakar Dombayya Kotian, DCIT, 11, Sant Niwas, Central Circle 1, 265, Sahid Bhagat Singh Road, vs. Mangaluru Mumbai 400001. PAN : AEOPK4847D & ITA No.2258 to 2264/Bang/2019 Assessment years : 2011 12 to 2017 18 Shri. M. N. Rajendra Kumar, DCIT, 1 276, PO 721, Pulkeri, Central Circle 1, Karkala 574104, vs. Mangaluru Udupi District, PAN : AFOPK5638K & ITA No.2457/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2016 17 DCIT, Shri. M. N. Rajendra Kumar, Central Circle 1, 1 276, PO 721, Pulkeri, Mangaluru. vs. Karkala 574104, Udupi District PAN : AFOPK5638K 2254 to 2264, 2457, 2334, 1630, 2356, ITA No. 2357,2373 to 2376 & 2453 to 2456/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 74 & ITA No.2334/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2014 15 DCIT, M/s. Om Sai Riddhi Siddhi Developers, Central Circle 1, Agarwal Trade Centre, Shop No. 154,154, Mangaluru. vs. Sector 11, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai, PAN : AACFO4848G & ITA No.1630/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2015 16 DCIT, Shri. Walter Noronha, Central Circle 1, "Trupthi" Mangaluru. vs. Opp. Chowla Gas Agency, Thumbay, Mangaluru, PAN : ADKPN8607P & ITA No.2356/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2016 17 DCIT, M/s. Property Infotech India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1, Door No. 16 1 32, Rohan Corporation, Mangaluru. vs. Balmatta Road, Mangaluru, 575002. PAN : AAFCP4270P & ITA No.2357/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2016 17 DCIT, Shri. Rohan Monterio, Central Circle 1, 16 1 32, Rohan Corporation, Mangaluru. vs. Balmatta Road, Mangaluru, 575002. PAN : AEXPM8169H & 2254 to 2264, 2457, 2334, 1630, 2356, ITA No. 2357,2373 to 2376 & 2453 to 2456/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 74 ITA No.2373 to 2376/Bang/2019 Assessment years : 2014 15 to 2017 18 Shri. Mohammad Ameer, DCIT, Behind Moti mall, Sturrock Road, Central Circle 1, 1st Cross, Near Taj Mansion House, vs. Mangaluru. Falnir, Manguluru 575002, PAN : AHDPA2626E APPELLANT RESPONDENT & ITA No.2453 to 2456/Bang/2019 Assessment years : 2014 15 to 2017 18 DCIT, Shri. Mohammad Ameer, Central Circle 1, Behind Moti Mall, Sturrock Road, Mangaluru. vs. 1st Cross, Near Taj Mansion House, Falnir, Manguluru 575002, PAN : AHDPA2626E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shree K. R. Vasudevan & Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocates Revenue
Delhi High Court Department Of Land Resources vs Mukesh And Associates on 12 February, 2024 $~18 * Date of decision: 12.02.2024 + O.M.P. (COMM) 591/2020 & I.A. 12163/2020, I.A. 12165/2020 I.A. 24081/2023 DEPARTMENT OF LAND RESOURCES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms. Jayashree, Adv. versus MUKESH AND ASSOCIATES ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S Santanam, Mr. Darsh Bansal, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Advs. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH : JASMEET SINGH, (ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Act") seeking to set aside the arbitral award dated 10.01.2020 as amended on 13.02.2020 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in ARB.P. 174/2018. 2. It is stated by Mr. Gogna, learned CGSC for the petitioner, that the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds stated under Section 34(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act, as well as Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. Digitally Signed O.M.P. (COMM) 591/2020 Page 1 of 23 By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:16.02.2024 12:03:00 3. He states that the award suffers from both factual and legal errors. 4. As regards factual errors, he submits that the contract entered into between the parties was void ab initio and hence, has no legal validity as the respondent got the same in a contrived manner and did not comply with the legal and statutory requirements. 5. He submits that the respondent never submitted Expression of Interest (hereinafter "EoI") within the prescribed date. 6. It is stated that on 11.01.2014, the petitioner, i.e. Department of Land Resources under the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India issued advertisement for Expression of Interest (hereinafter "EoI") from interested/eligible consultants for assignment of „Monitoring and Evaluation task to external agencies‟ to ensure objectivity, transparency and credibility of Integrated Watershed Management Portal ("IWMP") implemented by it, separately for 5 regions, i.e. East, West, North, South and NorthEast regions. 7. As per condition 7 of the EoI, the EoI with accompanying information was to be delivered in a written form in a sealed envelope to the mailing address as mentioned therein within three weeks from the publication of EoI. The EoI categorically mentioned that proposals received after due date will not be entertained under any circumstances. 8. The advertisement was published in the newspaper on 11.01.2014 and the three weeks expired on 01.02.1014, but since 01.02.2014 was a Saturday and a nonworking day of the Department, the last date for submission was to be treated as 03.02.2014. 9. It is stated that the respondent did not submit its proposal till the last date, i.e. 03.02.2014 in the written form and in a sealed envelope as Digitally Signed O.M.P. (COMM) 591/2020
JUDGMENT 1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present commercial suit filed by the plaintiff bank in favour of defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,03,893.65/ along with pendentlite and future interest from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. PLAINT 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Bank i.e. Bank of Baroda is a body corporate constituted under The Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfers of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and is having its Branch at MSME Loni Road, Delhi. It is further stated that the Chief Manager Mr. Nawal Kishore Jaiswal, is the authorized signatory and constituted attorney of the plaintiff Bank and is fully conversant with the facts of the case and further he has authority to file the present suit on behalf of plaintiff Bank. The suit has been filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,03,893.65/ as on 16.03.2025 against the defendant being the principal borrower. 2.1 It is submitted that on 31.08.2023 defendant had filed an application with the plaintiff bank seeking financial assistance in the form of personal loan for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ and considering her request, plaintiff bank sanctioned a Term Loan Facility of Rs.10,00,000/ to the defendant vide loan account no.89840600001586. It is further submitted that in order to secure the due repayment of balance outstanding amount relating to Term Loan Facility of Rs.10,00,000/, the defendant had executed the following security Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL
Delhi High Court Arun Gupta And Others vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 April, 2012 * % Judgment reserved on: 10.4.2012 Judgment pronounced on: 17.4.2012 + W.P.(C) 2251522518/2005 & CM No.1469214694/2005, 6787/2006, 7955/2006, 15087/2008 & 1536/2012 Indian Telecom Service Association & Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2221722257/2005 & CMs No.14646/2005, 14648/2005 Arun Gupta And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2225822463/2005 & CMs No.14652/2005 & 14655/2005 Mukesh Kumar Chauhan And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 22783/2005 S.K.Talware ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents W.P(C) 2221722257/2005 Page 1 of 26 + W.P.(C) 2278422788/2005 & CM No.16074/2005 Pushpender Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2278922847/2005 & CMs No.12817/2006, 13732/2006 & 14503/2006 Akhilesh Trivedi ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 23093/2005 Rakesh Kumar Tripathi ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2312423126/2005 Awadhesh K. Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents W.P(C) 2221722257/2005 Page 2 of 26 + W.P.(C) 23655/2005 Gajender Kumar Yadav ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1238012382/2006 & CMs No.9467/2006, 11074/2008 & 14543/2008 MTNL Executive Welfare Association ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Another ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 17618/2006 & CMs No. 1458814589/2006 & 170/2007 A.K.Sharma ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 3414/2007 & CM No.63966397/2007 Vinay Saran ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. VSR Krishna and Ms. Swati Sharma in WP(C) 2221522257/2005 Mr. Yasoban Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Srivastava, Mr. Ashish W.P(C) 2221722257/2005 Page 3 of 26 Sindhu and Mr. Arvind Tiwari in WP(C) 22789/2005 Mr. A.K.Srivastava and Mr. Ashish Sindhu in WP(C) 22783/2005, 22784/2005, 22789/2005, 23093/2005, 23124/2005 & 23655/2005 For Respondent : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. B.V.Niren, Mr Prasouk Jain, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma & Mr. Pratap for UoI Mr. Ravi Sikri with Mr. Vaibhav Kalra for MTNL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions are directed against the orders dated 21.10.2005 and 31.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No. 1963/2005 and other connected OAs. 2. Pursuant to its decision