abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Bombay High Court Veena H. Hinduja And Anr vs Hiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... on 9 September, 2019 Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 14219+J(1).doc Atul ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO. 142 OF 2019 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 595 OF 2017 IN SUIT NO. 229 OF 2017 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 322 OF 2019 1. Mohinder Rijhwani, 2. Prakash H Rijhwani 3. Prem H Rijhwani All Adults Indian Inhabitants residing at A30/3, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 ... Appellants ~ versus ~ 1. Hiranandani Construction Pvt Ltd A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its address at "Olympia" Central Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Represented through its authorized signatory R Giridharadas 2. Veena H Hinduja & Haresh R Hinduja, Page 1 of 32 9th September 2019 ::: Uploaded on 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on 11/09/2019 20:25:31 ::: Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 14219+J(1).doc Both adults Indian Inhabitant residing at B38/1, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 3. M/s. Maitri Park Co operative Housing Society, A housing society registered under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 having ofce at Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. ... Respondents A PPEARANCES IN APPL /142/2019 WITH NMCAL /322/19 FOR THE APPELLANTS/ Mr Arun Panickar, i/b Law Square. APPLICANTS FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 Ms Deepa Pohuja, with Ms Sheetal Raghavi, i/b M/s. J. Law Associates. FOR RESPONDENT NO. 5 Ms Sushma Singh, with Priyanka Raul. WITH APPEAL (L) NO. 143 OF 2019 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 595 OF 2017 IN SUIT NO. 229 OF 2017 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 324 OF 2019 Page 2 of 32 9th September 2019 ::: Uploaded on 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on 11/09/2019 20:25:31 ::: Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 14219+J(1).doc 1. Veena h Hinduja, 2. Haresh R Hinduja both adults Indian Inhabitants residing at B38/1, Maitri park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 ... Appellants ~ versus ~ 1. Hiranandani Constructions Pvt Ltd A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 havint its address at "Olympia" Central Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Represented through its authorized signatory R Giridharadas 2. Ramesh H Gurbaxani & Laxman H Gurvaxani, Both adults Indian Inhabitant residing at A/35/2, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 3. Ambat Ravindranath, An Indian Inhabitant having his address at A/36/1, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 4. Mohinder Rijhwani, Prakash H Rijhwani & Prem H Rijhwani, All adults Indian Inhabitants residing at A/30/3, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 Page 3 of 32 9th
1 Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Rep By its General Manager, Coimbatore Region, District Industries Centre/Zonal Office, No.2 Raja St Coimbatore 641 049. 2 Unicon Engineers Rep by Managing Partner P.Ponram, No.513A/6, Bharathi Road, Chinnavedampatty, Coimbatore 641 049 ... Respondents Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the Judgment passed in W.P.No.7633 of 2022 dated 13.07.2022 and consequently quash the orders passed by the 1st respondent in Case No.M&SEFC/CBER/11/ 2016 and order in R.C.No.436/D3/2014 dated 25.10.2016. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/18 W.A.No.2079 of 2022 For Appellant : Mr.R.Viduthalai, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar For Respondents : Mr.Om Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Manoharan for R2 ***** JUDGMENT D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. Challenging the order passed in W.P.No.7633 of 2022 dated 13.07.2022, this Intra Court Appeal has been filed to set aside the said order and consequently quash the orders passed by the 1st respondent in Case No.M&SEFC/CBER/11/2016 and order in R.C.No.436/D3/2014 dated 25.10.2016. 2. The facts in brief leading to filing of the instant appeal are as follows: Pursuant to the tender notice published on 27.1.2010 for Design, Supply, Erection and Commissioning of 2 Nos. of ESP for Clinker coolers at Ariyalur Cement Unit on turnkey basis, the appellant Corporation, after discussions with Unicon Engineers, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein, on 16.4.2010, issued work order to the second respondent company for execution of the aforesaid work and the same was accepted by the respondent Company. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/18 W.A.No.2079 of 2022 (i) On 16.11.2013, the appellant Corporation sent a letter to the respondent Company requesting to complete all the works before 30.11.2013 and analyse the cause for higher dust emission than the estimated level during unstabilised operation of the Kiln and solve the same. (ii) The respondent Company has filed an affidavit before MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL, COIMBATORE (MSEFC), the first respondent herein claiming an amount of Rs.2,66,80,157/ under various heads. The appellant sent a letter to MSEFC citing various issues
Course Ring Road, Rajkot360 Colony, Rajkot360 001 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADRPT 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. No. 01&02/RJT/2023 (a/o ITA No.134 & 135/Rjt/2023) (िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: (200708 & 200809) Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai The Income Tax Officer, Ward Thavrani, 4 Parsana Nagar, Shri 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, 5th Floor, Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Room No. 517, Race Course Ring Colony, Rajkot360 001 Vs. Road, Rajkot360001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADRPT 5807 E (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 16/RJT/2019 (िनधारणवष / Assessment Year: (201011) Damjibhai Lekharj Tharvani Income Tax Officer, Ward C/o. Sarda & Sarda, CAs, 1st Floor, 1(2)(4), Aaykar Bhavan, 5th Vs. Floor, Room No. 506, Race "Sakar" Opp. Rajkumar College, Dr. Course Ring Road, Rajkot Radhakrishnan Road, Rajkot360 001 1 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI Rajkot 360001 360 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 31,32,33/RJT/2019 (िनधारण वष / Assessment Year: (200910 to 201112) Incometax Officer, Ward2, Shree Damjibhai Lekhraj Thavrani, Junagadh Incometax Office, 302Sai Darsan Apartment, Bhutnath Chambers, Opp. Vs. Adarshnagar2, Joshipura, Bahauddin College, College Junagadh362 001 Road, Junagadh 362 001 थायीलेखास.ं /जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. No. 02 to 04/RJT/2019 (a/o ITA Nos.31 to 33/RJT/2019) (िनधारण वष / Assessment Years: (200910 to 201112) Shree Damjibhai Lekhraj Thavrani, Incometax Officer, Ward2, 302Sai Darsan Apartment, Junagadh Incometax Office, Adarshnagar2, Joshipura, Bhutnath Chambers, Opp. Junagadh362 001 Vs. Bahauddin College, College Road, Junagadh 362 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No. 171/RJT/2015 (िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: (200607) Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Asstt. Commissioner of Bhatiya 301, UVI Palace, Vs. Income Tax Central Circle Wing 1, Opp. Gitanjali 1, Rajkot College, Sadhu Vasvani 2 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI Road, Rajkot थायी ले खा सं /.जीआइ आर सं / .PAN/GIR No.: AIRPB 2097 F (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./IT(SS)A No. 01 to 06 /Rjt/2018 (िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: (200708 to 201213) Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Asstt. Commissioner of Bhatiya Income Tax Central Circle Vs. 1, Rajkot 301, UVI Palace, Wing 1, Opp. Gitanjali College, Sadhu Vasvani Road, Rajkot 360 001 थायी ले खा सं /.जी आइ आर सं /.PAN/GIR No.: AIRPB 2097 F (अपीला
Delhi High Court Mapsa Tapes Private Limited vs Shiv Naresh Sports Private Limited & Ors on 4 December, 2025 * % Judgment Reserved on: 30thOctober, 2025 Judgment pronounced on: 4th December, 2025 + CS(COMM) 689/2023 with I.A. 19138/2023 & I.A. 36016/2024 MAPSA TAPES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Mr. Hargun Singh Kalra and Mr. Vidur M., Advocates. versus SHIV NARESH SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendant Through: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr. Parth Goswami, Mr. Kumar Kshitij, Ms. Pragya Agarwal, Mr. Yashaswy Ghosh and Mr. Ranjeet Pawar, Advocates for D1. Mr. Ankit Bhatia, Advocate for D2 and D3. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL JUDGMENT AMIT BANSAL, J. I.A. 36016/2024 (u/OXIIIA r/w OXII R6 of CPC) 1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XIIIA read with Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), seeking a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff for a sum Rs.16,77,73,384/ towards part of the claim amount in the suit. The application is premised on the ground of admissions by defendant no.1 in its Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH CS(COMM) 689/2023 Page 1 of 16 Signing Date:04.12.2025 12:36:40 written statement as well as in the books of account maintained by defendant no.1. Factual Background 2. The plaintiff, M/s Mapsa Tapes Private Limited is a Micro, Small or Medium Enterprise ('MSME') registered with the Ministry of MSME, Government of India. 3. The defendant no.1, M/s Shiv Naresh Sports Private Limited is a company engaged in the business of sale and supply of school bags, sports apparel and equipment. 4. Officers of defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff stating that they had been awarded a tender floated by defendants no.2, i.e. Andhra Pradesh Samagra Siksha Abhiyan and defendant no.3, i.e. Department of School Education, State of Andra Pradesh, for supply of school bags for government school children in Andhra Pradesh. It was further represented that defendant no.2 had issued a Work Order dated 8th April, 2021 ('Work Order') and executed a tender agreement with defendant no.1 for supply of 47,32,064 bags to 4034 schools, under which defendant no.1 was entitled to receive payment of Rs.70,12,63,681/ from defendants no.2 and 3. 5. That the defendant no.1 requested the plaintiff to supply the said school bags to defendant no. 1 in order to fulfill its obligations under the Work Order. 6. Pursuant thereto, a Sales Confirmation dated 19th April, 2021 was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 ('Sales Confirmation'), recording the agreed quantity of bags, the price, and the total amount payable by defendant no.1 along with applicable GST. Under the Sales Confirmation, defendant no.1 was to arrange transportation for delivery, and payment was to be made within 45 days of the invoice, wit
Delhi High Court National Highways Authority Of India vs Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. on 13 September, 2023 * % Pronounced on: 13th September, 2023 + O.M.P. (COMM) 294/2019 & I.A. 764/2020 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Madhu Sweta and Ms. Raveena Dewan, Advocates versus ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Jay Salva, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajpal Singh, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH JUDGMENT CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. 1. The instant petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter The Act) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "a) To quash and set aside the arbitral award dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, and/or (b) To pass such other order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case." FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The petitioner, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), is an autonomous body constituted under the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 having its office at G5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi110075. NHAI functions towards developing, maintaining, and Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (COMM) 294/2019 Page 1 of 54 Digitally Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:13.09.2023 19:04:53 managing the country's National Highways and for matters connected thereto. 3. The respondent, Ashoka Buildcon Ltd., is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at S.No.861, Ashoka House, Ashoka Marg, Vadala, Nashik422011 (Maharashtra). 4. The petitioner on 15th February 2016 invited a proposal for the construction of the Project Highway for the construction of Two/Four laning with paved shoulders of Govindpur (Rajgunj) ChasWest Bengal Border section of NH32 from km. 0.000 to km. 56.889 (hereinafter referred to as "Project Highway") in the State of Jharkhand on NHDP PhaseIV on Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (hereinafter "EPC") mode involving vide RFP no. NHAI/11012/JH/IV/2004/04 as per which, it prescribed the technical and commercial terms and conditions for undertaking the project. 5. The respondent submitted its bid pursuant to the proposal by the petitioner and the same was accepted by the petitioner vide Letter of Acceptance no. NHAI/11012/JH/4/2004/04/85826 dated 19th July 2016. Accordingly, the Contract Agreement dated 1st August 2016 was entered into between the parties for the execution of the above mentioned project. 6. Thereafter, the respondent invoked the provisions of arbitration as per Clause 26.3 of the Contract Agreement on 31st July 2017 and accordingly submitted a list of disputes to the petitioner leading to the setting up of the Arbitral Tribunal on 26th September 2017. 7. The respondent filed its Statement of Claims before the learned Arbitral Tribunal which was followed by the Statement of Defence on Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (COMM) 294/2019 Page 2 of 54 Digitally Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:13.09.2023 19:04:53 behalf of the petitioner on 11th November 2017 and 10th March 2018 respectively. The respondent further filed a rejoinder on 30th April 2018.
Delhi High Court M/S Sharma International 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
Appeal No. 9274 of 2019 reported in (2021) 6 SCC 718. 5. Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned AC to AG has submitted that Clause 10 (kha) is in continuation of the Clause 10 (ka) and therefore, since the petitioner did not submit any work order with respect to printing and supply of one lakh calendar in any one year out of preceding three years, his technical bid for tender has rightly been rejected by the evaluation committee. 6. Briefly stated the facts reveals that the respondent no. 3 had issued a tender for printing and supply of one lakh calendar vide Tender Id 2023_IPRD_79720_1. The petitioner had participated in the tender process and had submitted the necessary documents. However, the petitioner could come to know about the rejection of his technical bid in the online portal wherein it has been mentioned that "work order evidencing printing and supply of one lakh calendar in any government or semi government or PSU was not attached". This according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in consonance with Clause 10 (ka) read with Clause 10 (kha). Since Clause 10 (ka) and 10 (kha), the interpretation of which has been stressed much upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have
Unit No. 2142018, 2nd Floor Circle 4(2) Narain Manzil, Barakhamba Road, Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN AAACC 4175 D ITA No. 1038/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 200506] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. Canon India Pvt Ltd Circle 4(2) Unit No. 2142018, 2nd Floor New Delhi Narain Manzil, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi Delhi PAN AAAFK 4094 N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv Shri Jainender Singh Kataria, Adv Shri Prashant Meherchandani, Adv Department By : Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CITDR ITA No. 5855/DEL/2021 [A.Y. 200304] CO No. 04/DEL/2025 ITA No. 1038/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 200506] Canon India Pvt Ltd Date of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The above captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the DRP1, New Delhi dated 20.01.2021 for A.Y 200304. The Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Delhi dated 21.12.2021 pertaining to Assessment Year 200506. The assessee has preferred cross objection against this order of the ld. CIT(A), Delhi dated 21.12.2021 pertaining to Assessment Years 200506. 2. Since underlying facts pertain to same assessee and identical issues are involved in the captioned appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 585/DEL/2021 [A.Y. 200304] [Assessee's Appeal] 3. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO as well as Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred in not granting complete credit of taxes paid by it in Japan on export Page 2 of 38 ITA No. 5855/DEL/2021 [A.Y. 200304] CO No. 04/DEL/2025 ITA No. 1038/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 200506] Canon India Pvt Ltd revenues from sale of software and not restricted owing to nil tax liability on account of business losses or 10A deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred in not allowing complete credit of taxes paid by assessee in Japan on export revenues from sale of software amounting to Rs 20,39,37,900. 1.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and DRP has erred in not adjudicating the claim of foreign tax credit and has framed a nonspeaking order to that extent apparently ignoring the submissions duly filed by the assessee. 1.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP has erred in not adjudicating the additional ground of objection raised by the Assessee during the DRP proceedings for grant of taxes paid in Japan. 1.4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and DRP has erred in not allowing complete credit of taxes paid by assessee in Japan by disregarding the judicial precedents placed by the assessee on record. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting complete credit of taxes withheld at source (by the deductors in India) claimed in the revised return of income amounting to RS 23,90,314/." Page 3 of 38
Delhi High Court Orders Vindhya Telelinks Limited vs Bharat Broadband Network Limited on 2 March, 2021 $~15 * + ARB.P. 546/2020 VINDHYA TELELINKS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through Mr Narendra M. Sharma, Advocate. versus BHARAT BROADBAND NETWORK LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr Nikhilesh Krishnan, Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 02.03.2021 [Hearing held through videoconferencing] 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the 'A&C Act'), inter alia, praying that an Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 2. The respondent (hereafter 'BBNL') had floated a tender on 03.04.2013 for supply of 24 Fibre Metal free Optical Fibre Cable with double Sheath (G.652D) and accessories. The Tender Conditions included an Arbitration Clause. 3. The petitioner submitted its bid pursuant to the aforesaid invitation to tender. 4. The petitioner's bid for 'Package E' was accepted on 21.07.2014. BBNL issued an Advance Purchase Order (APO) on the said date. After the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL petitioner had complied with the conditions mentioned in the APO, BBNL issued a Purchase Order (PO) for 'Package E' on 19.09.2014. 5. According to the petitioner, there was a change in classification of the product in question resulting in the change in the Excise Duty as factored by BBNL. It had proceeded on the basis that the product in question attracted Excise Duty of 10.30% instead of 12.36%. The petitioner claims that it forwarded a certificate from the concerned authorities certifying the applicable rate of Excise Duty, Educational Cess and Higher Education Cess. 6. The petitioner claims that apart from the Purchase Order for 'Package E' the petitioner was also issued other Purchase Order for other Packages. 7. The petitioner claims that the petitioner had demanded the differential amount which according to the petitioner was payable to it. The said demand was not met and consequently on 17.03.2020 the petitioner issued a notice invoking the Arbitration Clause. 8. Admittedly, the Arbitration Clause is set out in the General Conditions of the Contract. The said clause is set out below: "III.20. ARBITRATION III.20.1. In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under this agreement or in connection therewith (except as to the matters, the decision to which is specifically provided under this agreement), the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the CMD, BBNL or in case his designation is changed or his office is abolished, then in such cases to the sole arbitration of the officer for the time being entrusted (whether in addition to his own duties or otherwise) with the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL functions of the CMD, BBNL or by whatever designation such an officer may be called (hereinafter referred to as the